Opinion of the Court The claim is based on section 4 of the act of June 10, 1922 (42 Stat. 625, 627), which provides as follows: "SEC. 4. That the term 'dependent' as used in the succeeding sections of this act shall include at all times and in all places a lawful wife and unmarried children under twenty-one years of age. It shall also include the mother of the officer provided she is in fact dependent on him for her chief support." Also sections 5 and 6 of the act of June 10, 1922, 42 Stat. 628, as amended by the act of May 31, 1924, 43 Stat. 250. The plaintiff's mother, on November 1, 1924, when the claim began to run, was 61 years of age and was in poor health, and since 1929 has been a semi-invalid. Her living expenses during the period of the claim were not less than $75 per month, of which the plaintiff contributed $50. The mother's income aside from the contribution received from the plaintiff, from all sources, was about $25 per month. His contribution constituted by far the largest part of the amount required for her reasonable and necessary support. Under the uniform decisions of this court the dependency of the mother on the plaintiff for her chief support, within the meaning of the statute, is clearly established. Tomlinson v. United States, 66 C.Cls. 697; Haas v. United States, 66 C.Cls. 718; Freeland v. United States, 64 C.Cls. 364; Norris v. United States, 68 C.Cls. 719; Samouce v. United States, 69 C.Cls. 65; Rieger v. United States, 69 C.Cls. 632; Huske v. United States, 72 C.Cls. 306; Caudle v. United States, 72 C.Cls. 331; Page v. United States, 73 C.Cls. 626; Holmes v. United States, 73 C.Cls. 693. The plaintiff is entitled to recover the increased rental and subsistence allowances provided by law for an officer of his rank from November 1, 1924, to the date of the entry of judgment herein. Entry of judgment, however, will await the coming in of a report from the General Accounting Office of the amount of judgment plaintiff is entitled to receive in accordance with this opinion. It is so ordered. WHALEY, Judge; LITTLETON, Judge; GREEN, Judge; and BOOTH, Chief Justice, concur. Reporter's Statement of the Case NATIONAL SAVINGS & TRUST CO., EXECUTOR OF THE ESTATE OF FRANK F. FLETCHER, DECEASED, v. THE UNITED STATES [No. M-158. Decided November 14, 1932] On the Proofs Navy pay; rental and subsistence allowance; retired rear admiral active duty.-See Rodman v. United States, 70 C.Cls. 751. Same; period of active duty; sessions of board; report.-Plaintiff's decedent, a retired rear admiral, recalled to active duty to serve as member of an advisory board, held to have been on active duty up to the time the board made its report, and not merely to the time the board ended its sittings. The Reporter's statement of the case: Messrs. George A. King and John W. Gaskins for the plaintiff. King & King were on the brief. Mr. Louis R. Mehlinger, with whom was Mr. Assistant Attorney General Charles B. Rugg, for the defendant. The court made special findings of fact as follows: I. The plaintiff, National Savings & Trust Company, is the executor of the estate of Frank F. Fletcher, late rear. admiral of the United States Navy, having been appointed such by order of the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia. II. The late Frank F. Fletcher was commissioned an ensign, U.S. Navy, from July 18, 1876, and served continuously on active duty through successive grades until November 23, 1919. On December 15, 1914, he was commissioned a rear admiral of the senior nine. On November 23, 1919, he was transferred to the retirement list, having attained the statutory retirement age of sixty-four years. He had 43 years 4 months and 6 days active commissioned service to his credit at the date of retirement. III. On September 17, 1925, the said Frank F. Fletcher was ordered to active duty, and ordered to report on that day as a member of a board to study and advise as to the best means of developing and applying aircraft in national Opinion of the Court defense. The board met on September 17, 1925, held meetings for four weeks, and submitted its report on November 30, 1925. There is no evidence to show that the late Frank F. Fletcher performed any duty as a member of the board after the filing of the board's report. The evidence shows that the board did not function after November 30, 1925. IV. From July 16, 1908, decedent's next of kin was his wife, Susanne H. Fletcher. V. From September 17, 1925, to November 30, 1925, plaintiff received the pay of a rear admiral, United States Navy, retired, at the rate of $500 a month. If it is held that he was entitled to active-duty pay and allowances, with dependents, of a lieutenant commander of the Navy with over 30 years' service, there is due, in addition to the amount he received for this period, the sum of $246.67. The court decided that plaintiff was entitled to recover $246.67. WHALEY, Judge, delivered the opinion of the court. The plaintiff, the National Savings & Trust Company, is the executor of the estate of Frank F. Fletcher, deceased, having been appointed by the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia. This is a suit in behalf of the estate of a rear admiral, retired, United States Navy, for the difference between the pay of a rear admiral, retired, and the pay, as provided for in the statutes, of a retired rear admiral while performing active duty. The late Frank F. Fletcher, a retired rear admiral of the Navy, was recalled to active duty on September 17, 1925, and ordered to report on that day as a member of a board to study and advise as to the best means of developing and applying aircraft in national defense. According to the records of the Navy Department, on November 30, 1925, this board submitted its report, stating that it had met on September 17, 1925, and held meetings for four weeks. The records of the Navy Department do not disclose at what date Rear Admiral Fletcher was relieved from active duty. During the period of his active duty Rear Admiral Fletcher received the pay of a retired rear admiral. 182593-33-CC-VOL 76--19 Opinion of the Court The questions here concern his right to the difference between the retired pay received by him and the active-duty pay provided for in the statutes, and the length of time during which he was on active duty. The former question has been passed upon by this court in Hugh Rodman v. United States, 70 C.Cls. 751. It was there decided that the right to the difference in the pay was provided by the act of August 29, 1916 (39 Stat. 581), and was not repealed by the provisions of the act of June 10, 1922 (42 Stat. 625). This decision controls the issue here. The remaining question is the duration of Admiral Fletcher's active service to which he was recalled on September 25, 1925. The defendant contends his active service ended four weeks after his appointment, that is to say, at the expiration of the meetings of the board. The plaintiff contends his active service extended to November 30, 1925, the date of the submission of the board's report. The board was created and the members appointed to study and advise as to the best means of developing and applying aircraft in national defense." They held meetings for four weeks, and afterwards prepared a report which was filed on November 30, 1925. Before arriving at their conclusions and making a final report, it was necessary for the members of the board to study the evidence or information obtained at their meetings, in order to advise as to the best means of developing and applying aircraft. There was no time limit fixed in the order in which the report was to be made. The evidence does not show when the report was prepared and the signatures attached but the reasonable assumption is that the report was not signed until the day it was filed. The filing of the report represents the individual as well as the collective act of each member of the board and therefore he necessarily must have been actively engaged up to the date of its submission. At any time before the report was filed on November 30, 1925, it would have been possible for any member of the board to change his mind as to the form of the report, and therefore the members were on active duty until the final submission of the report. In our opinion, the late Rear Admiral Fletcher was on active duty from September 25, 1925, until the final submis Reporter's Statement of the Case sion of the report on November 30, 1925. The plaintiff is entitled to a judgment of $246.67. It is so ordered. WILLIAMS, Judge; LITTLETON, Judge; GREEN, Judge; and BOOTH, Chief Justice, concur. S. E. HADDON v. THE UNITED STATES [No. M-220. Decided November 14, 1932] On the Proofs Rental and subsistence allowances, Navy; dependent mother; soie support.—Plaintiff, an officer of the Navy, being the sole support of his mother; held entitled to rental and subsistence allowances in right of a dependent mother, sec. 4, act of June 10, 1922. The Reporter's statement of the case: Mr. John W. Price for the plaintiff. Mr. Rees B. Gillespie was on the brief. Mr. M. C. Masterson, with whom was Mr. Assistant Attorney General Charles B. Rugg, for the defendant. The court made special findings of fact as follows: I. The plaintiff, Stephen Elkins Haddon, is a lieutenant, senior grade, United States Navy, and is stationed at the naval air station, naval operating base, Hampton Roads, Virginia. The plaintiff enlisted in the Navy on October 3, 1908, and received his present commission on January 1, 1922. The plaintiff was married on August 24, 1929, and claims rental and subsistence allowances on account of an alleged dependent mother from July 1, 1925, to the date of his marriage. II. The plaintiff's mother, aged 69, and his father, aged 77 or 78, separated in 1912, and have not lived together since that time. From July 1, 1925, to July 7, 1928, the plaintiff's mother resided alone in San Diego, California. Her health during that period was fair. She was able to maintain an apartment, prepare her own meals, and live alone |