Johnson v. United States

87 Ct. Cl. 270, 1938 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 193, 1938 WL 3982
CourtUnited States Court of Claims
DecidedMay 2, 1938
DocketNo. 43802
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 87 Ct. Cl. 270 (Johnson v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering United States Court of Claims primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Johnson v. United States, 87 Ct. Cl. 270, 1938 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 193, 1938 WL 3982 (cc 1938).

Opinion

Williams, Judge,

delivered the opinion of the court:

The petition filed by plaintiff in this case alleges that on March IB, 1920, he was, and for many years prior thereto had been, regularly and actively employed as a United States civil service railway postal employee; that on that date he was summarily and illegally discharged from his position, and that on March 14, 1930, he was by governmental authorities unconditionally reinstated, and with a clean record •fully restored to his former position of civil service railway postal employee, and continued to serve as such until his retirement January 31,1937. He alleges that by reason of his discharge and total loss of employment for a period of ten years, at compensation of $150 per month, he sustained injury and damages to the amount of $19,052.00.

The defendant moves to dismiss the petition on the ground that any cause of action plaintiff may have had growing out of his alleged unlawful discharge from the railway postal service was barred by the statute of limitations when the petition was filed on January 7, 1938. Obviously the defendant is right in its contention. The plaintiff’s alleged illegal dismissal from the railway postal service, resulting [271]*271in the loss of salary sought to be recovered by him, occurred more than seventeen years prior to the date of the filing of the petition, and his unconditional restoration to the service occurred almost eight years previous to that date. The petition therefore will have to be dismissed.

It is so ordered.

Whaley, Judge; Littleton, Judge; Green, Judge; and Booth, Chief Justice, concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Johnson v. United States
110 Ct. Cl. 644 (Court of Claims, 1948)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
87 Ct. Cl. 270, 1938 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 193, 1938 WL 3982, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/johnson-v-united-states-cc-1938.