
    JOHN G. WILLIAMS, Administrator Col. Francis Taylor, v. THE UNITED STATES.
    [15 C. Cls. R., 514; 22 id., 116; 137 U. S. R., 113.]
    
      On the claimants Appeal.
    
    This is the case of an officer of the Revolution, who commanded the Albe- . marie Guards, a battalion raised in 1779 for one year to guard the “ convention prisoners.” It does not appear that the battalion served till the end of the war, nor that it was consolidated with other regiments, nor is it named in the resolutions 1780. Col. Taylor, commanding the guards, never received half pay for life assured to officers, reduced, by the resolutions.
    The court below decides:
    (1) That the circumstances relied upon are insufficient to sustain a verdict.
    (2) As to the meaning of certain military terms employed by the Continental Congress.
    (3) As to the purpose and intent of the Resolutions 9th February, 3d, 21st October, 1780 (3 Journal Congress, 432, 532, 538), which provide for the reduction of the Continental Army.
    (4) That the Act 5tfc July, 1832 (4 Stat. L., p. 563, § 3), refers only to the regiments enumerated in the second section, though the officers of other troops may have a valid claim against Yirginia.
    
      (5) That an award or judgment final against a State is neither obligatory in law nor conclusive in evidence against the United States under the Revised Statutes, § 906.
    The decision of the court below is reviewed with great particularity and affirmed.
   Mr. Justice Blatcheord

delivered the opinion of the Supreme Court November 17,1890.  