
    EDWIN C. McNEIL v. THE UNITED STATES
    [No. F-294.
    Decided January 9, 1928]
    
      On the Proofs
    
    
      Army pay; professors at Military Academy; lack of appropriation; recourse to Court of Claims.- — See Strong v. United States, 60 O. Cls. 627.
    
      The BeportePs statement of the case:
    
      Mr. Cornelius H. Bull for the plaintiff. King <& King were on the briefs.
    
      Mr. John G. Ewing, with whom was Mr. Assistant Attorney General Herman J. Galloway, for the defendant.
    The court made special findings of fact, as follows:
    I. Plaintiff has at all times from July 2, 1923, to the present date been an officer of the Judge Advocate General’s Department of the United States Army on active duty holding the rank of major.
    II. Pursuant to paragraph 40, Special Orders, No. 99, dated War Department July 2, 1923, plaintiff reported to the Superintendent of the United States Military Academy at West Point, N. Y., for duty. He was assigned to duty in the department of law at said academy by paragraph 4, Special Orders, No. 141, dated headquarters, U. S. Military Academy, July 2, 1923.
    III. By Special Orders, No. 196, dated War Department, August 27,1923, plaintiff was directed to report to the Superintendent of the United States Military Academy for duty as professor of law. He reported as directed and by Special Orders, No. 31, dated headquarters, U. S. Military Academy, West Point, N. Y., August 27, 1923, plaintiff was directed to enter upon his duties as professor of law. Plaintiff entered upon said duties August 27, 1923, and from that date to the present time has been and still remains on that duty.
    IY. Prom August 27, 1923, to June 30, 1926, plaintiff has received from the United States the pay of a major, U. S. Army. He has not received any increase in pay or allowances on account of his assignment to and performance of duties as professor of law at the U. S. Military Academy, West Point, N. Y.
    The court decided that plaintiff was entitled to recover the difference in the pay of major and lieutenant colonel for the period from August 27,1923, to June 30,1926, amounting to $1,870.
   MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT

This case is on all fours with the case of Strong v. United States, 60 C. Cls. 627. The statutes governing the Strong ease are the same as those which govern this case. There is no difference between the two cases. The pay and allowances of the plaintiff have been fixed by law. The officers of the Treasury have no authority to pay the officer until an appropriation therefor has been made. But the liability of the United States to pay exists independently of the appropriation, and may be enforced by proceedings in this court.  