United States v. Farenholt
Headline: Court upholds pay award and rules a Navy passed assistant surgeon entitled to higher 'mounted' pay, letting the officer receive $141.33 for service from December 1900 to July 1901
Holding: The Court affirms that a naval passed assistant surgeon who held the rank of lieutenant is entitled to the higher 'mounted' pay equivalent to an Army captain, and awards him $141.33 for the disputed period.
- Confirms higher 'mounted' pay for Navy passed assistant surgeons dating from July 1, 1899.
- Allows medical officers to recover pay differences previously paid at lower rates.
- Upholds the Treasury practice of paying mounted rates to these medical officers.
Summary
Background
The dispute concerns Ammen Farenholt, a Navy medical officer who entered service in 1894, became a passed assistant surgeon in 1897, and attained the rank of lieutenant on December 26, 1900. He served at sea on the U.S.S. Concord and the U.S.S. Oregon between December 26, 1900, and July 27, 1901. He sued the United States seeking $282.66 in additional pay he said he was owed for mounted rates and a ten percent increase for foreign service; the Court of Claims awarded him $141.33 and denied the ten percent increase.
Reasoning
The central question was whether a Navy passed assistant surgeon in the rank of lieutenant should receive the Army equivalent "mounted" pay rate. The Court relied on the 1898 law that says Navy officers get the same pay as officers of corresponding Army rank and on Army pay tables that distinguish mounted from not-mounted pay. The Court cited prior decisions and the Treasury Comptroller’s practice recognizing mounted pay for medical officers, rejected the Government’s argument that mounted pay is merely reimbursement for horse-related expenses, and concluded that the word "assistant surgeon" in the statutes covers passed assistant surgeons as well. On that basis the court affirmed the award of $141.33.
Real world impact
The ruling confirms that medical officers of the Navy who rank with Army officers entitled to mounted rates should receive the higher mounted pay for the covered periods. It upholds the Comptroller’s earlier practice and lets similarly situated officers recover differences already decided to be owed. Justice Moody took no part in the decision.
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?