Wadbrook v. United States

Court of Claims

Wadbrook v. United States

90 Ct. Cl. 480, 1940 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 112, 1940 WL 4102

CourtUnited States Court of Claims

DecidedFebruary 5, 1940

DocketNo. 43580

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 90 Ct. Cl. 480 (Wadbrook 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

Wadbrook v. United States, 90 Ct. Cl. 480, 1940 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 112, 1940 WL 4102 (cc 1940).

Pincite

Opinion

[481]*481OPINION

Per Curiam

: On May 26, 1936, the Secretary of the Navy forwarded to the President the findings of the retiring board and recommended that plaintiff be retired effective July 1, 1936. On May 27 the President approved the [482]*482findings of the board and the recommendation of the Secretary of the Navy, and directed that plaintiff be retired on July 1, 1936. This was done. Upon these facts plaintiff is entitled to recover under the authority of James A. Greenwald, Jr., v. United States, 88 C. Cls. 264, 267. In that case the court held that “The act [sections 1452-1453, R. S.] does not give to an officer the right of retirement but places within the discretion of the President whether or not an officer should be retired for permanent incapacity and when he should be retired.” See, also, Holland v. United States, 83 C. Cls. 375.

Judgment will be entered in favor of plaintiff for active duty pay and allowances from May 27 to July 1, 1936, and increased retired pay of an officer of his rank with more than ten years of service from July 1, 1936, to date of judgment upon the filing of a report from the General Accounting Office showing the amounts due for these periods. It is so ordered.

On May 6, 1940, on report from the General Accounting Office, judgment was entered in the sum of $1,295.48.

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

[481]*481OPINION

Per Curiam

: On May 26, 1936, the Secretary of the Navy forwarded to the President the findings of the retiring board and recommended that plaintiff be retired effective July 1, 1936. On May 27 the President approved the [482]*482findings of the board and the recommendation of the Secretary of the Navy, and directed that plaintiff be retired on July 1, 1936. This was done. Upon these facts plaintiff is entitled to recover under the authority of James A. Greenwald, Jr., v. United States, 88 C. Cls. 264, 267. In that case the court held that “The act [sections 1452-1453, R. S.] does not give to an officer the right of retirement but places within the discretion of the President whether or not an officer should be retired for permanent incapacity and when he should be retired.” See, also, Holland v. United States, 83 C. Cls. 375.

Judgment will be entered in favor of plaintiff for active duty pay and allowances from May 27 to July 1, 1936, and increased retired pay of an officer of his rank with more than ten years of service from July 1, 1936, to date of judgment upon the filing of a report from the General Accounting Office showing the amounts due for these periods. It is so ordered.

On May 6, 1940, on report from the General Accounting Office, judgment was entered in the sum of $1,295.48.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

90 Ct. Cl. 480, 1940 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 112, 1940 WL 4102, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wadbrook-v-united-states-cc-1940.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack