Study aid, not legal advice. caselaw is not a law firm and does not provide legal advice or engage in the unauthorized practice of law (UPL). All briefs, outlines, and citation tools on these pages are educational summaries for law students; they are not a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney admitted in your jurisdiction. Bar-admission rules vary by state. For court filings or client matters, verify every authority against the official reporter and your court's local rules. Use of caselaw does not create an attorney-client relationship.
WILLIAMS v. UNITED STATES, 1879 — 154 U.S. 648 · caselaw · US
General
WILLIAMS v. UNITED STATES
154 U.S. 64825 L. Ed. 309·Supreme Court of the United States·1879
Brief incoming
Hand-reviewed Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.
Opinion
WILLIAMS v. UNITED STATES.
APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF CLAIMS.
No. 1058.
Submitted January 24, 1879.
Decided February 3, 1879.
The acceptance by a supernumerary officer in the Continental line of an appointment in the regiment of guards authorized by the State of Virginia took him out of the line and put him into the new organization.
[MAJORITY — Mr. Chief Justice Waite]
Mr. Chief Justice Waite
delivered the opinion of the court.
From the finding of facts sent up with this appeal we are clearly of the opinion that Dr. Taylor did not “ continue in service until the end of the war,” within the meaning of the Resolutions of Congress of October 21, 1780, and of March 22, 1783, under which the claim in this case is made. When he accepted his appointment in the regiment of guards, January 9, 1779, he' ceased to be a supernumerary surgeon’s mate and became an active officer in the new regiment. Consequently when that regiment was discharged, because its term of enlistment had expired, he was out of service. When the new regiment was raised the Governor and Council of Virginia were authorized by Congress to appoint its officers out of those in the Virginia line who were then supernumerary. Although it is said in one of the additional findings, that Dr. Taylor was “ assigned to active duty, ” this is to he construed in connection with the resolution to which reference is made, and that being done it is apparent there was no intention by that language to modify the previous finding that “he was appointed surgeon’s mate of the regiment of guards authorized by the resolution of January 9, 1779, of the Continental Congress.” By the resolution Congress permitted the supernumerary officers in the line to accept appointments in the new regiment. Such an acceptance took them out of their former position in the line and put them into the new organization. The judgment of the Court of Claim's is affirmed.
Mr. P. E. Dye for appellant.
Mr. Attorney General, Mr. Solicitor General and Mr. Assistant Attorney General Smith for appellee.