Schaible v. United States

135 Ct. Cl. 890, 1956 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 192, 1956 WL 909
CourtUnited States Court of Claims
DecidedJuly 12, 1956
DocketNos. 46784, 46873, 46941, 46945, 46956, 46968, 46974, 46990, 46998, 47021, 47022, 47146, 47166, 47344; Nos. 46565, 46637, 46638, 46715, 46716, 46726, 46764, 46769, 46781, 46783, 46833, 46930, 46933; Nos. 45839, 45843, 45845
StatusPublished
Cited by5 cases

This text of 135 Ct. Cl. 890 (Schaible 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
Schaible v. United States, 135 Ct. Cl. 890, 1956 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 192, 1956 WL 909 (cc 1956).

Opinion

[892]*892Opinion

per curiam,.;

These cases were heard by the Honorable W. Ney Evans, a commissioner ox this court, who rendered reports of his findings of fact. By an order of the court dated July 25, 1955, the court pursuant to Buie 45 (c), directed Commissioner Evans to submit recommendations for conclusions of law in these cases. líe has done so, in the form of an opinion giving reasons and citing precedents. The court adopts the opinion and conclusions of Commissioner Evans which are printed below and renders judgments for the plaintiffs in the amounts shown in the Conclusion of Law.

It is so ordered.

RECOMMENDATION BT THE COMMISSIONER

In each of these 80 cases a customs inspector seeks to recover extra compensation under section 5 of the Act of February 13, 1911, as amended,1 in addition to the extra compensation that has already been paid to him under that Act for services performed on assignments to extra duty.

Whether or not the plaintiffs are lawfully entitled to this additional extra compensation is the only legal issue involved in any of the cases. Moreover, the legal issue is the only issue in any of the cases except for two questions of fact relating to parts of the claims of seven of the plaintiffs in the Sander-son group. Inasmuch as the facts are determined in plaintiffs’ favor in each instance,2 resolution of the legal issue is dispositive of the cases.

Collectors of customs were authorized as early as 18133 to fix reasonable extra compensation for night time services by customs inspectors, and to exact the amount of such compensation from the licensees who required the services.4 The 1911 Act was the lineal descendant of the 1873 statute. It continued the provision for extra compensation for night [893]*893time services and added a provision for extra compensation for work on Sundays and holidays. The authority of the collector to exact the cost of the extra compensation from the licensees was also continued, in the 1911 Act and in the amendments thereto of 1920, 1922, and 1930.5

The Bureau of Customs interpreted these statutory provisions to mean that extra compensation was payable for night services and work on Sundays and holidays only to the extent that the cost of such compensation was obtained from the licensees.

In United States v. Myers, 320 U. S. 561, the Supreme Court upheld the contention of a group of customs inspectors at the port of Detroit that payment of the extra compensation authorized by the statute was an obligation of the United States, regardless of the collector’s failure to require or obtain reimbursement. Further amplification was made by this court in O'Rourke v. United States, 109 C. Cls. 33.

In the instant cases the parties have agreed that, with one exception hereinafter noted, the facts fall within the pattern of Myers and O'Rourke, and defendant does not now challenge the standards approved in those cases. The parties have also agreed upon computations showing the amounts the several plaintiffs should receive if they are entitled to recover.

The reasons assigned by the Bureau of Customs for refusing to pay the claims of these plaintiffs in the course of administrative procedures were based on rulings by the Comptroller General. His reasons, in turn, were somewhat narrower than those assigned in support of the refusal in defendant’s brief.

Myers was decided in 1944. The services performed by the plaintiffs in the instant cases were performed in 1944 and prior years, before the Bureau of Customs altered its regulations to conform with the Myers decision.

The 30 cases now under consideration were filed in 1945, 1946, and 1947. During the eight to ten years since these cases were commenced, hundreds of claims filed in this court [894]*894by inspectors of the Customs and Immigration6 Services have been concluded by judgments stipulated on the authority of the test cases.7 Only these suits remain.

In 1949, the claims of three immigration inspectors were denied by the Comptroller General on the ground that their claims were based on services performed during assignments to extra duty, whereas Myers and Renner-Krupp were both founded on services performed during regular tours of duty.8 The ruling held specifically:

There is no legal basis or requirement that the changes in the regulations, based upon a construction of the controlling statute by the courts different from the long-existing practice, be given retroactive effect, as to cases arising prior to the changes in the situation here involved where the facts in the cases differ from those upon which the decisions of the court were based. * * *

This ruling was repeated by the Comptroller General on April 23, 1951, in his denial of the claim of Charles J. Houska, one of the plaintiffs in the Sanderson group. Houska’s services had involved irregular or special assignments, rather than regular tours of duty.9

Within a few months after the Comptroller General’s ruling was initially made, the Bureau of Customs announced its position to be that “claims may properly be made pursuant to the Myers and O^Bourhe cases for periods of work for which no 1911 Act payment was previously made, but that periods for which payment was previously made under the 1911 Act as then interpreted should not now be reopened for readjustment.”10 The Comptroller General’s ruling, above quoted, was cited in support of the ruling.

[895]*895This is the position to which the Bureau of Customs has since adhered. It was the basis of the Bureau’s refusal to accede to stipulated judgments in these cases on the authority of Myers and O'Rourke.

All of the claims of all of the plaintiffs in the Handily and Schaible groups, all of the claims of the plaintiff Houska, of the Sanderson group, and a part of each of the other claims in Sanderson are based on services performed during assignments to extra duty.

Defendant’s brief does not distinguish these claims from Myers and O'Rourke on such narrow ground.

The services at issue were not only performed on assignments to extra duty. They were performed, in part, for licensees from whom ,the cost of extra compensation could be and was collected. As a consequence, each of these plaintiffs has been paid some extra compensation for the services performed on the assignments in question, and the amount paid in each instance was all that the regulations then in force provided for. The amount so paid was not, however, as much as it would have been if the extra compensation had been computed under the standards approved in Myers and O'Rourke. Each of the plaintiffs sues for the difference. This difference represents “the extra compensation * * * in addition to the extra compensation that has already been paid * * *” to which reference was made in the opening sentence of this opinion.

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

Related

Adams v. United States
162 Ct. Cl. 766 (Court of Claims, 1963)
Olympic Steamship Co. v. United States
165 F. Supp. 627 (W.D. Washington, 1958)
Gray v. United States
136 Ct. Cl. 312 (Court of Claims, 1956)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
135 Ct. Cl. 890, 1956 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 192, 1956 WL 909, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/schaible-v-united-states-cc-1956.