
    THOMAS D. GRIFFIN v. THE UNITED STATES.
    [No. 14459.
    Decided January 11, 1886.]
    
      On the Proofs."
    Naval officers at a foreign station are ordered borne. The steamer from Montevideo to Rio Janeiro fails to connect with the steamer for New York. A month will elapse before another steamer sails for New York. The officers therefore return by the way of Liverpool.
    The case is identical with JBCannum’s (19 C. CIs. R., 516), and the rule there laid down concerning the route for which mileage should be computed is reaffirmed.
    
      
      The Reporters’ statement of the case:
    The following is the material fact found by the court- and which constituted the subject of controversy :
    The claimant sailed early in January, 1879, from Montevideo to Eio Janeiro, on a steamer of the Pacific Steam Navigation Company, in company with Commodore Temple and Midshipman William GL Hannum, aud a number of naval officers, intending to sail direct from Eio Janeiro to New York, but the steamer failing to connect with the American steamer for New York, all of the officers, including the claimant, proceeded by the way of Liverpool to New York. The reason for taking this route was, because there was no other American steamer sailing direct for New York for a month, and also because yellow fever was very prevalent at Éio Janeiro.
    
      Mr. John Paul Jones for the claimant.
    
      Mr. F. P. Dewees for the defendants.
   Weldon, J.,

delivered the opinion of the court:

It is conceded that the facts of this case are legally identical with the facts in the case of Hannum, reported in 19 O. Cls. E., 516 j but we are asked to reconsider the principles of law announced in that decision. The Assistant Attorney-General for his argument relies on the very able letter of the Hon. W. W. Upton, Second Comptroller, addressed to the Secretary of the Treasury, in which a different theory of the law is sought to be maintained than the one announced in the case reported in the nineteenth volume. We have carefully considered the question in the light of the argument as presented in this case, but do not find a sufficient reason to alter the rule of law determined in the Hannum Case. It is the opinion of the court that the claimant is entitled to recover the sum of $321.44, and for that amount a judgment will be entered.  