TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Williams v. United States

Williams v. United States, 154 U.S. 648 (1879)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Supreme Court of the United States
Decided
February 3, 1879
Docket
No. 1058
Judges
Waite
Citations
154 U.S. 64814 S. Ct. 118825 L. Ed. 30914 Ct. Cl. 59013 Ct. Cl. 3951879 U.S. LEXIS 1379
Syllabus
The acceptance by a supernumerary officer in the Continental line of an appointment in the regiment of guards authorized by the State of Virginia took him out of the line and put him into the new organization.
Summary
APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF CLAIMS.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion — Waite

Mr. Chief Justice Waite delivered the opinion of the court.

From the finding of facts sent up with this appeal we are clearly of the opinion that Dr. Taylor did not “ continue in service until the end of the war,” within the meaning of the Resolutions of Congress of October 21, 1780, and of March 22, 1783, under which the claim in this case is made. When he accepted his appointment in the regiment of guards, January 9, 1779, he' ceased to be a supernumerary surgeon’s mate and became an active officer in the *649 new regiment. Consequently when that regiment was discharged, because its term of enlistment had expired, he was out of service. When the new regiment was raised the Governor and Council of Virginia were authorized by Congress to appoint its officers out of those in the Virginia line who were then supernumerary. Although it is said in one of the additional findings, that Dr. Taylor was “ assigned to active duty, ” this is to he construed in connection with the resolution to which reference is made, and that being done it is apparent there was no intention by that language to modify the previous finding that “he was appointed surgeon’s mate of the regiment of guards authorized by the resolution of January 9, 1779, of the Continental Congress.” By the resolution Congress permitted the supernumerary officers in the line to accept appointments in the new regiment. Such an acceptance took them out of their former position in the line and put them into the new organization.

The judgment of the Court of Claim's is affirmed.

Mr. P. E. Dye for appellant.

Mr. Attorney General, Mr. Solicitor General and Mr. Assistant Attorney General Smith for appellee.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1916: 11947: 119162026peak 1916 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Reno Club, Inc. v. Young Investment Co.182 P.2d 1011 (Nev. 1947)
  2. Patterson v. Rousney159 P. 636 (Okla. 1916)

Most recent

  1. Reno Club, Inc. v. Young Investment Co.182 P.2d 1011 (Nev. 1947)
  2. Patterson v. Rousney159 P. 636 (Okla. 1916)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list