Meaney v. United States

Court of Claims

Meaney v. United States

72 Ct. Cl. 186, 1931 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 333, 1931 WL 2345

CourtUnited States Court of Claims

DecidedMay 4, 1931

DocketNo. J-689

StatusPublished

This text of 72 Ct. Cl. 186 (Meaney 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

Meaney v. United States, 72 Ct. Cl. 186, 1931 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 333, 1931 WL 2345 (cc 1931).

Pincite

Opinion

LittletoN, Judge,

delivered the opinion:

It is obvious from the facts that during the period May 18, 1920, to July 1, 1923, plaintiff responded “to a needy family condition ” within the meaning of the act of May 26, 1926, 44 Stat. 654. The payments to his mother were in excess of the allowances drawn by him. He drew $2,282.34 and during the same period he paid to his mother $3,440. The sums in question were all paid prior to July 1, 1923. The payments had been made by the disbursing officer in good faith.

Under the decision of this court in Ealloran v. United States, 69 C. Cls. 59, plaintiff is entitled to recover allowances for this period. From July 1, 1923, forward plaintiff’s mother was clearly dependent upon him for her chief support, and under the decisions of this court in Freeland v. United States, 64 C. Cls. 364, Tomlinson v. United States, 66 C. Cls. 697, Haas v. United States, 66 C. Cls. 718, and other decisions of similar import, plaintiff is entitled to recover the allowances for the month of July, 1923.

Judgment in his favor for $2,282.34 will be entered. It is so ordered.

Whaley, Judge; Williams, Judge; GeeeN, Judge; and Booth, Ghief Justice, concur.

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

LittletoN, Judge,

delivered the opinion:

It is obvious from the facts that during the period May 18, 1920, to July 1, 1923, plaintiff responded “to a needy family condition ” within the meaning of the act of May 26, 1926, 44 Stat. 654. The payments to his mother were in excess of the allowances drawn by him. He drew $2,282.34 and during the same period he paid to his mother $3,440. The sums in question were all paid prior to July 1, 1923. The payments had been made by the disbursing officer in good faith.

Under the decision of this court in Ealloran v. United States, 69 C. Cls. 59, plaintiff is entitled to recover allowances for this period. From July 1, 1923, forward plaintiff’s mother was clearly dependent upon him for her chief support, and under the decisions of this court in Freeland v. United States, 64 C. Cls. 364, Tomlinson v. United States, 66 C. Cls. 697, Haas v. United States, 66 C. Cls. 718, and other decisions of similar import, plaintiff is entitled to recover the allowances for the month of July, 1923.

Judgment in his favor for $2,282.34 will be entered. It is so ordered.

Whaley, Judge; Williams, Judge; GeeeN, Judge; and Booth, Ghief Justice, concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

72 Ct. Cl. 186, 1931 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 333, 1931 WL 2345, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/meaney-v-united-states-cc-1931.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack