Palmer v. United States

Court of Claims

Palmer v. United States

52 Ct. Cl. 31, 1917 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 244, 1917 WL 1312

CourtUnited States Court of Claims

DecidedJanuary 8, 1917

DocketNo. 32969

StatusPublished

This text of 52 Ct. Cl. 31 (Palmer 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

Palmer v. United States, 52 Ct. Cl. 31, 1917 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 244, 1917 WL 1312 (cc 1917).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam :

This is a case of a lieutenant in the Navy who was ordered by the commander in chief of the United States Atlantic Fleet to report to a rear admiral commanding the Fourth Division of the Atlantic Fleet, and is claiming additional pay as aid to said rear admiral.

This officer was not nominated as aid to the Secretary of the Navy by the commander in chief of the United States Atlantic Fleet nor by the rear admiral commanding the Fourth Division of the fleet.

Under the decision in the case of Knox v. United States, ante, p. 22, the plaintiff was not legally appointed aid, and therefore can not recover for the additional pay claimed by him.

It is ordered that his petition be, and the same is hereby, dismissed.

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

Per Curiam :

This is a case of a lieutenant in the Navy who was ordered by the commander in chief of the United States Atlantic Fleet to report to a rear admiral commanding the Fourth Division of the Atlantic Fleet, and is claiming additional pay as aid to said rear admiral.

This officer was not nominated as aid to the Secretary of the Navy by the commander in chief of the United States Atlantic Fleet nor by the rear admiral commanding the Fourth Division of the fleet.

Under the decision in the case of Knox v. United States, ante, p. 22, the plaintiff was not legally appointed aid, and therefore can not recover for the additional pay claimed by him.

It is ordered that his petition be, and the same is hereby, dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

52 Ct. Cl. 31, 1917 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 244, 1917 WL 1312, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/palmer-v-united-states-cc-1917.