McCabe v. United States

Court of Claims

McCabe v. United States

84 Ct. Cl. 291, 1936 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 182, 1936 WL 2971

CourtUnited States Court of Claims

DecidedDecember 7, 1936

DocketNo. 43315

StatusPublished

This text of 84 Ct. Cl. 291 (McCabe 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

McCabe v. United States, 84 Ct. Cl. 291, 1936 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 182, 1936 WL 2971 (cc 1936).

Pincite

Opinion

Williams, Judge,

delivered the opinion of the court:

The facts in this case have been stipulated as found. The only question involved is whether or not the plaintiff, when ordered from his station to his home to await orders, was directed to make a permanent change of station within the meaning of the statute, and, if so, was he entitled to the cost of the transportation of his dependents.

This question has repeatedly, in previous cases, been decided in favor of the plaintiff. Beirnie S. Bullard, Admx., v. United States, 66 C. Cls. 264; and Walter O. Henry v. United States, 74 C. Cls. 527. There is no reason why [293]*293the plaintiff should have been put to the expense of bringing suit to recover what is unquestionably due him except the arbitrary action of the General Accounting Office in refusing to follow the law as it has been announced by the court in previous decisions.

Judgment is awarded to plaintiff in the sum of $256.05." It is so ordered.

Whalet, Judge; Littleton, Judge; Geeen, Judge; and Booth, Ghief Justice, concur.

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

Williams, Judge,

delivered the opinion of the court:

The facts in this case have been stipulated as found. The only question involved is whether or not the plaintiff, when ordered from his station to his home to await orders, was directed to make a permanent change of station within the meaning of the statute, and, if so, was he entitled to the cost of the transportation of his dependents.

This question has repeatedly, in previous cases, been decided in favor of the plaintiff. Beirnie S. Bullard, Admx., v. United States, 66 C. Cls. 264; and Walter O. Henry v. United States, 74 C. Cls. 527. There is no reason why [293]*293the plaintiff should have been put to the expense of bringing suit to recover what is unquestionably due him except the arbitrary action of the General Accounting Office in refusing to follow the law as it has been announced by the court in previous decisions.

Judgment is awarded to plaintiff in the sum of $256.05." It is so ordered.

Whalet, Judge; Littleton, Judge; Geeen, Judge; and Booth, Ghief Justice, concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

84 Ct. Cl. 291, 1936 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 182, 1936 WL 2971, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mccabe-v-united-states-cc-1936.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack