Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

REPORT OF DECISIONS

OF

THE SUPREME COURT

IN COURT OF CLAIMS CASES

WILLIAM W. MCGREGOR v. THE UNITED STATES

[No. 43693]

PERRY SHILTON v. THE UNITED STATES

: [No. 43695]
LOUIE HESS v. THE UNITED STATES

[No. 43664)
JACK WADE v. THE UNITED STATES

(No. 43665)
OWEN BUSCH v. THE UNITED STATES

[No. 43666]

[98 C. Cls. 638; 320 U. S. 736] Personal injury; evidence held not establishing negligence on the part of defendant's agent.

Decided December 7, 1942; petitions dismissed; plaintiffs' motions for new trials overruled March 1, 1943.

Plaintiffs' petitions for writs of certiorari denied by the Supreme Court October 11, 1943.

571

100 C. Cls.

LAWRENCE M. WILLIAMS, AS LIQUIDATOR OF STERLING SUGARS, INC., FORMERLY A LOUISIANA CORPORATION, STERLING SUGARS SALES CORP., AND STERLING SUGARS, INC., A DELAWARE CORPORATION, v. THE UNITED STATES

[No. 45050]

LAURENCE M. WILLIAMS, AS LIQUIDATOR OF STERLING SUGARS, INC., FORMERLY A LOUISIANA CORPORATION v. THE UNITED STATES

[No. 45654]
[99 C. Cls. 203; 320 U. S. 750]

Floor stocks tax under Agricultural Adjustment Act, as amended.

Decided February 1, 1943; plaintiff not entitled to recover for floor stocks taxes on sugar which were passed on to the vendees and not refunded, and entitled to recover for floor stocks taxes paid on cotton bags and not passed on to vendees but absorbed by plaintiff. Plaintiff's motion for new trial overruled May 3, 1943.

Plaintiff's petition for writ of certiorari denied by the Supreme Court October 11, 1943.

INSULAR SUGAR REFINING CORPORATION V.

THE UNITED STATES

[No. 45062]

[99 C. Cls. 345; 320 U. S. 750] Floor stocks tax imposed by Agricultural Adjustment Act, recovery of; sufficiency of evidence to show tax not passed on.

Decided April 5, 1943; petition dismissed. Plaintiff's motion for new trial overruled June 7, 1943.

Plaintiff's petition for writ of certiorari denied by the Supreme Court October 11, 1943.

571

THE UNITED STATES, PETITIONER, v. HOWARD

C. MYERS

[Supreme Court No. 142]

[Court of Claims No. 43671]

THE UNITED STATES, PETITIONER, V. JOHN H.

ARBLE

[Supreme Court No. 143]

[Court of Claims No. 43672]

THE UNITED STATES, PETITIONER, v. CHARLES

C. MARTIN

[Supreme Court No. 144]

(Court of Claims No. 43673]

THE UNITED STATES, PETITIONER, v. WALTER

O. PLITZ

[Supreme Court No. 145]

[Court of Claims No. 43674)

THE UNITED STATES, PETITIONER, v. GEORGE

H. SPITZ
[Supreme Court No. 146]
[Court of Claims No. 43675]

[99 C. Cls. 158; 320 U. S. 561] On writs of certiorari to review judgments of the Court of Claims, February 1, 1943, that claimants, customs inspectors at the port of Detroit from September 1, 1931, to August 31, 1937, were entitled to extra compensation, as fixed by the Act of 1911, as amended by the Act of 1920, for services performed between the hours of 5 o'clock p. m. and 8 o'clock a. m. or on Sundays or holidays, and that the Government is liable for such extra compensation. 99 C. Cls. 158.

574432—44 vol. 100_ 38

100 C. Cls.

The judgment of the Court of Claims in each case was reversed in part and affirmed in part, January 3, 1944, and “the proceeding remanded to the Court for determination of the claim of the inspectors in accordance with this opinion." 320 U. S. 561.

Mr. Justice REED delivered the opinion of the Supreme Court, holding:

1. The statutes providing for extra compensation to customs inspectors for overtime services at night create an obligation on the part of the United States to pay such compensation irrespective of the statutory provision requiring payment to the United States by those who, by special license, procure such services; and such payment by the United States is "extra compensation" over and above the annual salary and is not dependent upon the collection of such extra compensation from the licensees.

2. The legislative history of the statutes relating to extra compensation for customs inspectors clearly discloses the intention of Congress to allow extra compensation only when there are overtime services in the sense of work hours in addition to the regular daily tour of duty without regard to the period within the 24 hours when the regular daily tour is performed.

3. The statute, section 5, 41 Stat. 402 (U. S. Code, Title 19, section 267) authorizing the collector to use the "shift" system in the assignment of customs inspectors in those ports where the customary hours are other than 8 a. m. to 5 p. m. so as to make their hours conform with the daily working hours in such ports, gave the collector authority to assign inspectors to 8-hour duties within a 24-hour period so as to secure 24-hour service without extra compensation.

4. “Overtime", used in the statutes as applied to weekdays, refers to hours longer than the daily limit of 8 a. m. to 5 p, m., nine hours with one hour for food and rest; and these tours of duty are movable within the 24-hour period in accordance with prevailing working hours and the requirements of the service, so that the inspectors whose tours of duty are performed at night are not on that account entitled, under the provisions of section 5 of the Act of February 13, 1911, as amended, and sections 401, 450 and 451 of the Tariff Act of 1930, to extra compensation over and above their annual salaries, but such statutory provisions have reference only to hours longer than the daily limit.

Sectors in thystem in the horizing the to2 (U. S. Code

571

5. Extra compensation for work on Sundays and holidays is contemplated by the statute (section 5) which provides that extra compensation shall be paid to inspectors “who may be required to remain on duty between the hours of 5 o'clock p. m. and 8 o'clock a. m. or on Sundays or holidays”, since if inspectors working on Sundays and holidays were not to receive extra compensation without regard to whether services on those days were overtime, there would have been no occasion to add Sundays and holidays to the overtime.

6. Services of customs inspectors at a bridge or tunnel are within the provision for overtime compensation for services on Sundays and holidays made by section 5 of the Act of February 13, 1911, as amended, in view of the expansion of the section's application by section 401 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (46 Ştat. 590, 708) to include among the instrumentalities of foreign commerce every contrivance capable of being used as a means of transportation on land or water, and the provision of sections 450 and 451 of such Act for unlading by special license on Sundays and holidays and for extra compensation of customs inspectors by the licensee.

7. In awarding extra compensation to customs inspectors for overtime services, the United States was not entitled to credit for that part of the base pay received for such services, since the intention to give extra compensation precludes such a claim, and hence customs inspectors in addition to their regular salaries for weekdays are entitled to statutory additional pay for over

time, Sundays and holidays. Mr. Chief Justice STONE was of the opinion that the judg. ment should be reversed in its entirety and the suits dismissed.

CHARLES E. LEYDECKER v. THE UNITED STATES

[No. 45299]

[97 C. Cis. 711; 320 U. S. 796] · Pay and allowances; bachelor officer in U. S. Army with dependent mother.

Decided December 7, 1942; plaintiff entitled to recover. Plaintiff's motion to vacate judgment entered April 5, 1943,

« AnteriorContinuar »