UNITED STATES
v.
MORAN
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
A master at arms in the United States Coast Guard sought back pay for the period from August 1917 to December 1918, claiming he was entitled to the rate of pay given to a chief master at arms in the Navy under the Act of May 22, 1917, less amounts already received. The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Claims' judgment awarding him $260.50 in unpaid compensation, holding that his duties corresponded to those of a Navy chief master at arms and thus entitled him to the equivalent pay rate under the statute.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Mr. Justice McKenna delivered the opinion of the Court.
Action for $600.00. Judgment for $260.50. . The case was submitted with United States v. Allen, just decided, ante, 317, depends upon the same statute and presents the «question of the claim of a master at arms in the Coast Guard to receive pay at the rate allowed by the statute to a chief master at arms in the Navy, less all pay previously received in the lower grade.
Moran enlisted in the United States Revenue Cutter Service, the name of which has since been changed to the United States Coast Guard, as an ordinary seaman and attained the rank of master at arms, the duties of which corresponded in all respects to the duties of chief master ah arms in the Navy. Moran, therefore, since April 6, 1917, has been, and is, entitled to receive a rate of pay corresponding to that of a chief master at arms in the Navy. Had he been so paid, and as required by the Act of May 22, 1917, c. 20, 40 Stat. 84, he would have received during the entire period from August 1, 1917, when he was placed on active duty, to December 31, 1918, the sum of $1,790.50. The pay received by him, howevér, was $1,530.00, leaving a balance due of $260.50. For this sum the Court of Claims gave judgment.
The findings of the court sustain its action, and on the authority of the Allen Case we affirm the judgment.
Affirmed.