Opinion

Horton v. United States

  • 94 Ct. Cl. 591
  • 1941 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 75
  • 1941 WL 4620
Court
United States Court of Claims
Filed
May 5, 1941
Status
Published
Author
Green
On the bench
Green, Jones, Littleton, Madden
Cited by
1 cases
Authority
More cited than 12.5%

The opinion

Green, Judge,

concurring in the result:

I concur in the result but wish to add some observations.

I think the act before the court upon which the suit is based is perfectly clear and plain. The words mean just exactly what they say and can properly be construed no other way. The word “emoluments,” as defined by the dictionary and as applied by the courts, would include the privileges and benefits given to retired officers and it makes the meaning of the statute clear and definite. In the case of Long v. United States, No. 43642, decided this day, ( 93 C. Cls. 544 ) the majority opinion holds that under the contention of the defendant the plaintiff would get nothing in the way of allowances and no meaning whatever would be ascribed to the word used because retired officers get nothing at all in the way of allowances. I think the act under consideration requires no special construction but merely should be taken just as it reads.

I am authorized to say that Chief Justice Whaley concurs in the above observations.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.