delivered the opinion of the court. He recited the facts as above stated, and continued:

' The questions are—

-1. Whether the officers of the navy and of the regular army who were employed in the prosecution of the war with Mexico are entitled to the three months’ - extra pay provided for. by the act of 1848, and if so, then,

2. What is the “ pay ” to which they are entitled ?

We have no hesitation in answering the first of these questions in the affirmative. All the doubts there may have been upon that subject when the act of 1848 stood alone were, in our opinion, removed by the act of 1879. It is difficult to see *513 why the proviso was added to that act, if it were not to make it plain that Congress intended to include “ the officers, petty officers, seamen, and marines of the United States Navy,the Revenue Marine Service, and the officers and soldiers of the United States Army employed in the prosecution of said war ” among those who were entitled to the “ extra pay” provided for.

The answer to the second question is, to our minds, attended with no greater difficulty. Those of the regular army or navy who were “ engaged in the military service of the United States in the war with Mexico ” may be said to “ have served out the term of their engagement,” or to have been “ honorably discharged,” within the meaning of those terms as used in .the act of 1848, when the war was over, or when they were ordered or mustered out of that service. Being in the army and navy, their “ engagement ” was to serve wherever they were ordered for duty. Their engagement to serve in the war with Mexico ended when they were taken away, from that service by proper authority.

The pay they were to receive was evidently that which they were receiving at the. end of their engagement, or when they were honorably discharged. The language is, “ shall, be entitled to receive three months’ extra pay,” evidently meaning the same pay they would have received if they had remained in the same service three months longer. It follows that, as. North was serving at sea when he was ordered away, he was entitled to three months’ sea pay, and as Emory was mustered out of his service in the war as lieutenant-colonel of volunteers, his pay must be in accordance with that rank.

As the effect of the statutes on which the Several claimants rely was fully and elaborately considered in the opinion of the Court of Claims, Emory v. United States, 19 C. 01. 254, and we affirm the judgments of that court, it is unnecessary to do more than state in this brief way the • conclusions to which wé have come.

The judgment in each case is Affirmed.