United States v. Bishop

120 U.S. 51, 7 S. Ct. 413, 30 L. Ed. 558, 1887 U.S. LEXIS 1938
Supreme Court of the United States·Decided January 10, 1887·No. 1029·Published·Cited by 7 cases

Opinion

Mr. Justice Harlan

delivered the opinion of the court.

This case does not differ in principle from that of United States v. Symonds, just decided.

Bishop is now, and has been for more than four years, a lieutenant-commander .in the navy. By direction of the Secretary of the Navy, he assumed the duties of executive officer of the training-ship Minnesota, on the 18th of April, 1884. During the period of such service that vessel was stationed in New York harbor, cruising and moving about under her own power. Her machinery and equipment were kept in order, and she was-perfectly seaworthy, capable, upon short notice, of being used in a protracted cruise.

The duties of Bishop, while such executive officer, were more arduous and confining than those of officers of similar grade upon vessels in foreign waters.

*52 For the reasons given in United States v. Symonds, we, are of opinion that the services of' appellee were, within the meaning of § 1556 of the Revised Statutes, performed “at sea,” and, consequently, it was rightly adjudged in the court below that he was entitled to sea-pay, as established for officers of his grade, during the period of his service on the Minnesota.

Judgment affirmed.

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

United States v. Bishop, 120 U.S. 51, 7 S. Ct. 413, 30 L. Ed. 558, 1887 U.S. LEXIS 1938 (1887).

120 U.S. 51 (United States v. Bishop) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Spielman v. General Host Corporation
402 F. Supp. 190 (S.D. New York, 1975)
Mahan v. United States
40 Ct. Cl. 36 (Court of Claims, 1904)
Taussig v. United States
38 Ct. Cl. 104 (Court of Claims, 1903)
Ryan v. United States
38 Ct. Cl. 143 (Court of Claims, 1903)
United States v. Barnette
165 U.S. 174 (Supreme Court, 1897)
Barnette v. United States
30 Ct. Cl. 197 (Court of Claims, 1895)
Lemly v. United States
28 Ct. Cl. 468 (Court of Claims, 1893)