
    SAMUEL REED COLHOUN v. THE UNITED STATES.
    [No. 24582.
    Decided December 18, 1905.]
    
      On the Proofs.
    
    A paymaster in the Navy is ordered home, there to settle his accounts and await orders. The Navy Regulations allow paymasters twenty days to make up their accounts in such cases, and the Department allows this officer ten days more. There being no public quarters at his home, he now seeks to recover commutation of quarters.
    I. A paymaster in the Navy detached .from his vessel and ordered, • “ Proceed to your home in the United States, settle yow accounts, and await orders,” is on duty during the period prescribed by the regulations and order of the Department for the making out of his accounts, and for that period he is entitled to commutation of quarters if none can be furnished to him.
    II. So much of the order as provides that the officer shall “ await orders ” at his home does not take effect until the period allowed for settling his accounts has expired.
    
      The Reporters’ statement of the case:
    The following are the facts of the case as found by the court:
    I. The claimant, Samuel Heed Colhoun, is, and was at the times hereinafter referred to, a pay director with the rank of captain of more than twenty years’ service in the Navy.
    II. The following is a copy of the order detaching claimant from duty as pay officer of the U. S. S. Iowa, dated January 22, 1908:
    “ DEPARTMENT OE THE NaVT,
    “ Bureau op Navigation,
    “ "Washington, D. 0., January ££, 1903.
    
    “ Sir : Upon the reporting of your relief you will regard yourself detached from duty as pay officer of the U. S. S. Iowa. Make the necessary transfer, including the public funds in band and on deposit, to your relief; proceed to your home in the United States, settle your accounts, and await orders.
    “ Immediately upon your arrival home report your address in full to the Bureau of Navigation, Navy Department. See article 241, Navy Regulations, 1900.
    “ Respectfully,
    “ (Signed) War. S. Cowles,
    
      “Acting Chief of Bureau
    
    The indorsements show that claimant was detached February 23, 1903, and arrived at his home February 26, 1903.
    III. The Navy Regulations in force at the time this claim accrued provided as follows:
    “ 1239. (1) A commissioned officer of the line of the Navy or of the Medical or Pay Corps, or a chief boatswain, chief gunner, chief carpenter, or chief sailmaker, on duty at a station, where there are no public quarters for his accommodation, or where the public quarters are inadequate, or any such officer on special duty or detached service on shore, is entitled to commutation for quarters at established rates.
    “ (2) Commutation of quarters is allowed to any such officer on duty where no public quarters are furnished by the United States, as follows: * * *
    “(rZ) Officers who, for the convenience of the Government, are directed to await orders for a limited period at a point where there are no public quarters.” (Navy Regulations, 1900, paragraph 1239.)
    IY. The Army Regulations in force at the time this claim accrued provided as follows:
    “ 1489. An officer on duty without troops at a station where there are no public quarters, or where the public quarters are inadequate, is entitled to commutation therefor at established rates.
    “ 1490. Officers on duty in the War Department, at Army and other general headquarters, attending surgeons and other officers on duty in cities and other places where public quarters are not furnished, but where enlisted men are on duty only as guards, orderlies, clerks, and messengers, and recruiting officers at city stations are regarded as being on duty without troops within the meaning of the laws and regulations.
    “ 1495. Officers who, for the convenience of the Government, are directed to await orders for a limited period at a point where there are no public quarters are entitled to commutation ; but an officer ordered to his home to await orders is not entitled to this allowance.” (Army Regulations, 1901.)
    V. The claimant was constantly engaged performing work connected with the settlement of his accounts for one month, to wit, from the date of his arrival at his home to March 26, 1903. His home during that time was at the Mansion House, a hotel in Brooklyn, N. Y., where he resided with his family.
    The allowance of rooms for an officer of corresponding rank in the Army would be five rooms, commutation for which at the rate prescribed by statute (acts of June 18, 1879, 20 Stat. L., 151, and June 23, 1879, 21 Stat. L., 31), $12 per room per month, would amount for the time occupied to $60.
    During no portion of the time stated was the claimant furnished with any quarters whatever by the Goveritment, or with any office, place, or room where he could perform the duty of settling his accounts; nor did he receive from the Government or any of its officers any commutation of quarters.
    During all the time of his performance of this duty his quarters at the Mansion House cost him more than the amount of the allowance, as hereinbefore stated.
    This claim has been presented to the accounting officers of the Treasury and by them disallowed.
    
      Messrs. Geo. A. and Wm. B. King for the claimant.
    
      Mr. G. M. Anderson (with whom was Mr. Assistant Attorney-General Pradt) for the defendants.
   Atkinson, J.,

delivered the opinion of the court:

There is no controversy as to the facts involved in this case. Samuel R. Colhoun was, at the beginning of the controversy now before us, a pay director in the United States Navy, with the rank of captain, of more than twenty years’ service. He was on duty as a pay officer on the U, S. S. Iowa at the time he was ordered by the Navy Department at Washington to detach himself from said ship and proceed to his home in the United States for the purpose of settling his accounts, and to await the further orders of the Navy Department. In obedience to this order he left said ship February 25, 1903, and arrived at his home, in Brooklyn, N. Y., February 26 of that year.

The- only questions in the case, therefore, to be disposed of by the court are: Was the claimant, Colhoun, in conforming to the orders received by him from the Navy Department while at his home in the city of Brooklyn, N. Y., on duty as a naval officer of the United States; and if so, is he entitled to commutation for quarters at the expense-of the United States while he remained at his home in Brooklyn, from February 26, 1903, to and including March 26, 1903, being thirty days, during which time he was engaged in the work" of settling his accounts with the United States as a naval paymaster thereunder?

It fs insisted that, if claimant was ordered to report at his home merely for his own personal convenience, and not for the convenience and benefit of the Government of the United States, his contention in this case could not be entertained by the court; but if, on the other hand, his appearance in the city of Brooklyn, in obeying the order of his superior officers,was for the'good of the service and the benefit particularly of the Navy Department of the United States, the opposite or contrary must be true. <

The order of the Bureau of Navigation, under date of January 22, 1903, directed the claimant to detach himself from, his. ship and to “ proceed to your [his] home in the United States, settle your [his] accounts, and await orders.” This order was mandatory, and therefore should be and was strictly obeyed. On arriving at his home in Brooklyn, N. Y., no quarters were furnished him. The only alternative, therefore, that Avas left to him was to secure suitable quarters at the expense of the Government in some proper locality, which he did (sec. 1080, Army Regulations, 1863; act June 18, 1878, 20 Stat. L., 151) ; and when he filed his account or bill of expense against the United States payment of the same was refused by the accounting officers of the Treasury. Hence this suit. (Sec. 9, act June 18, 1878, 20 Stat. L., 159; sec. 13, act- March 3,1899', 30 Stat. L., 1007; sec. 1489, Army Begula-t-ions, 1901.)

The claimant contends that upon his arrival at his home in Brooklyn, being assigned to duty without troops, he promptly proceeded to the settlement of his accounts with the Government, in accordance with Navy Department order of January 22, 1903, and after devoting considerable time to the disposition of the same and finding it to be impossible to complete the work within the twenty days allowed under Navy Begulations he asked for and was granted ten days’ additional time in which to complete the work upon which he was engaged. Consequently he insists that during his thirty clays’ stay in the city of Brooklyn, from February 26, 1903, to and including March 26, 1903, he was on active duty settling his accounts, in obedience to the specific order of the Navy Department bearing date January 22, 1903, aforesaid, but that he was not awaiting orders until he had completed the specific work to which he had been assigned and upon which he was then engaged. In short, his contention narrows itself to this single proposition: He was at his home engaged in the active duty of settling his accounts with the United States as a naval paymaster, and was not, during the thirty days he was thus engaged, “-awaiting orders; ” or, in other words, his accounts were to be settled first and when this work was accomplished he was to make a report to the Navy Department and then “ await orders,” which he did, in accordance with the terms of his assignment.

The defendants insist that the claimant was ordered to return to his home mainly for his own personal convenience, in order that he might prepare himself for the new position to which he had been promoted, and he therefore is not entitled to commutation of quarters at the expense- of the United States while he was at his own home in Brooklyn; and the case of Phisterer against’ the- United States is cited, which was decided by this court in favor of the claimant (12 C. Cls. R., 108), which decision, however, was reversed by the Supreme Court (94 U. S. R., 219).

The Phisterer case differs materially from the case at bar. He (Phisterer) was, upon his own request, ordered to his home to await orders only. The order transferring him from his command to his home did not embrace-a command to perform any military duty whatever. lie was simply ordered to his home to “ await orders,” and nothing more. In the case before us, Colhoun was ordered to proceed to his home “ to 'settle his accounts, and await orders.” Mr. Justice Hunt, in rendering the opinion of the court in the Phis-terer case, «aid: “We think the regulation we have referred to [Army Regulations established by the act of March, 1863J was not intended for a case like that we are considering— that is, where an officer is at his own home awaiting orders, and having no public duty whatever to perform.” Colhoun was on duty for thirty days at his home settling his accounts with the United States, and when this work was completed he reported to the Department for assignment to duty, while Phisterer was at his own home performing no public duty, and was simply awaiting orders. (Long v. United States, 8 C. Cls. R., 398; Lippitt v. United States, 100 U. S. R., 663.)

The decision of the court is that the claimant be allowed the sum of $60, in accordance with the findings of fact and conclusion of law.  