United States v. Hite
Headline: Court affirms that a temporary Navy officer who served beyond U.S. waters must receive two months’ extra pay at his sea-service rate, forcing the Government to pay the higher sea-pay difference to discharged sailors.
Holding: The Court affirmed that the officer is entitled to two months’ extra pay at his sea-service rate, and the Government must pay the $116.66 difference.
- Requires wartime extra pay be calculated at the sea-service pay rate.
- Allows discharged sailors to recover pay differences owed from overseas service.
- Limits Government use of the lower ‘‘waiting orders’’ rate for such claims.
Summary
Background
John M. Hite was appointed a temporary assistant engineer in the Navy on May 14, 1898, and served on the U.S.S. Massachusetts from June 1 to December 17, 1898. He was detached and ordered home and was honorably discharged on December 22, 1898. Congress’ act of March 3, 1899, granted two months’ extra pay to Navy officers who served creditably beyond the limits of the United States during the war with Spain. The Treasury accounting officers paid Hite two months at a lower ‘‘waiting orders’’ rate, leaving a claimed unpaid difference of $116.66. The Court of Claims awarded Hite that amount, and the Supreme Court reviewed the judgment.
Reasoning
The central question was whether the two months’ extra pay should be calculated at the higher sea-service pay Hite received while serving overseas or at the lower waiting-orders rate used at his discharge. The Court agreed with the Court of Claims that the extra pay is tied to the fact of service beyond U.S. waters and therefore should be paid at the same rate the officer was receiving while so serving. Hite’s detachment to go home was a step toward discharge and did not place him on waiting orders, so he kept the sea-service pay basis. The Court distinguished earlier cases and affirmed the judgment awarding the $116.66 difference.
Real world impact
The ruling requires the Government to calculate similar wartime extra pay using the pay rate in effect while the service member served beyond U.S. limits. Temporary Navy officers and enlisted men discharged after overseas service can press similar claims for pay differences under the March 3, 1899, statute.
Ask about this case
Ask questions about the entire case, including all opinions (majority, concurrences, dissents).
What was the Court's main decision and reasoning?
How did the dissenting opinions differ from the majority?
What are the practical implications of this ruling?