Syllabus

WILLIAM C. ATWATER & CO. v. UNITED STATES

[65 C. Cls. 621; 278 U. S. 618]

Petition for writ of certiorari denied by the Supreme Court October 15, 1928.

ROUSE, EXECUTOR, v. UNITED STATES

[65 C. Cls. 749; 278 U. S. 638]

Petition for writ of certiorari denied by the Supreme Court October 22, 1928.

COLE STORAGE BATTERY CO. v. UNITED STATES

[65 C. Cls. 164; 278 U. S. 641]

Petition for writ of certiorari denied by the Supreme Court October 29, 1928.

MANTLE LAMP CO. v. UNITED STATES

[65 C. Cls. 437; 278 U. S. 641]

Petition for writ of certiorari denied by the Supreme Court October 29, 1928.

EVERLASTIK, INC., v. UNITED STATES

[65 C. Cls. 171; 278 U. S. 643]

Petition for writ of certiorari denied by the Supreme Court November 19, 1928.

Syllabus

LUPFER ET AL. v. UNITED STATES

[Ante, p. 134; 278 U. S. 643]

Petition for writ of certiorari denied by the Supreme Court November 19, 1928.

HARDWARE UNDERWRITERS ET AL. v. UNITED STATES

[65 C. Cls. 267; 278 U. S. 645]

Petition for writ of certiorari denied by the Supreme Court November 26, 1928.

NYBERG, ADMINISTRATOR, v. UNITED STATES

[Ante, p. 153; 278 U. S. 646]

Petition for writ of certiorari denied by the Supreme Court November 26, 1928.

MINIS, EXECUTOR, ET AL. v. UNITED STATES

[Ante, p. 58; 278 U. S. 657]

Petition for writ of certiorari denied by the Supreme Court January 21, 1929.

Syllabus

CHAPMAN v. UNITED STATES

[63 C. Cls. 424; 278 U. 8. 660]

On writ of certiorari. Judgment vacated by the Supreme Court October 1, 1928, and cause remanded to the court below with directions to enter judgment for the petitioner, with interest, on motion of the respondent.

LEONARD v. UNITED STATES

[64 C. Cls. 384; 279 U. S. 40]

Judgment was rendered in favor of the United States in the court below. Upon certiorari the judgment was affirmed, the Supreme Court deciding:

1. In the act of June 10, 1922, which adjusts the base pay of officers of the Army, Navy, and Marine Corps, according to rank and length of service, the clause in § 1 providing that "For officers in the service on June 30, 1922, there shall be included in the computation all service which is now counted in computing longevity pay," refers only to officers who were in active service on that date.

2. The act to equalize pay of retired officers, approved May 8, 1926, in providing that the pay of officers retired on or before June 30, 1922, shall not be less than that of officers of equal rank and length of service retired subsequent to that date, contemplates that the standard of comparison in each case shall be an officer continually in active service until his retirement after that date, and does not operate to extend to officers retired before June 10, 1922, the benefits of the clause from the act of that date quoted supra, par. 1.

3. An officer of the Marine Corps who retired in 1911, and, under the act of March 2, 1903, received longevity pay for his retired service because the retirement was on account of wounds received in battle, held not entitled, under the acts of June 10, 1922, and May 8, 1926, to have the years spent by him on the retired list counted in determining his base pay period.

Mr. Justice Stone delivered the opinion of the Supreme Court February 18, 1929.

24646-29-C C-VOL 66- -50

Syllabus

UNITED STATES v. NEW YORK CENTRAL RAILROAD CO., LESSEE

[65 C. Cls. 115; 279 U. S. 73]

UNITED STATES v. NEVADA COUNTY NARROW GAUGE R. R. CO.

[65 C. Cls. 327; 279 U. S. 73]

Judgments were rendered against the United States in the court below. Upon certiorari the judgments were affirmed, the Supreme Court deciding:

Under the act of July 28, 1916, the Interstate Commerce Commission,

in fixing the compensation to be paid by the United States to railroads for services in carrying the mails, has authority to make its order increasing rates operative from the time of the filing of the carrier's petition for increase.

Mr. Justice Holmes delivered the opinion of the Supreme Court March 11, 1929.

INDEX DIGEST

ACCOUNTING OFFICER.

See Contracts, XVIII; Estoppel; Interest.

ARMY PAY.

See Pay, I, II, IV, V, VII.

AUTHORITY.

See Contracts, I, VII; Dent Act; Jurisdiction, II; Res Adjudicata;
Settlement Contracts, I; Taxes, XXVIII, XXXVI, XLIII.

BILLS.

See Constitution.

BONUS.

See Pay, I.

CHARTER PARTY.

Where notwithstanding its lack of the full complement of men
required by the charter party on ship's delivery a vessel, on
notice by the charterer to sail, proceeded to the Roads and
instead of continuing the voyage, as it could have done, there
waited for the additional men, the loss of time was not due
to a deficiency of men which prevented "the working of or the
continuance on the voyage of the vessel," but was incurred
through "fault of the ship," and the charterer is entitled to
damages accordingly, the measure thereof being the rate of hire
for the actual period of detention. Dampskibsselskabet Norden,
661.

CONSTITUTION.

Senate bill No. 3185, 69th Congress, 1st session, entitled "An act
authorizing certain Indian tribes and bands, or any of them,
residing in the State of Washington, to present their claims to
the Court of Claims," duly passed by both Houses of Congress
and presented to the President but not returned by him or at
any time approved, was prevented, under Article I, section 7,
clause 2, of the Constitution, from becoming a law by the
adjournment of Congress before the expiration of 10 days (Sun-
days excepted) after the bill was presented. Nor does the
fact that the adjournment was only of the first session of
Congress affect the status of the bill. Okanogan Indian
Tribes et al., 26.

See also Indians, I; Sovereignty; Taxes, XLIII,

787