Discrimination Cases

<p>The JReporteri statement of the case:</p> <p>The material allegations of the petition will be found in the opinion of the court.</p> <p>Congress had discovered that there was a lurking equity somewhere in the date of any officer’s appointment, and with most commendable perseverance had sought to find, and to provide for it, but thus far had failed.</p> <p>The next attempt was, we submit, more successful. Ten years later the act approved February 2d, 1897, was passed (29 Stat. L., 593). It was identical in intent with the former legislation but it used the disjunctive conjunction “or” between the words “ appointment” and “ commission.” It says * * * ‘c shall be held and considered to have been mustered into the service of the United States in the grade named in his appointment or commission * * * .” For the first time t íe two things, which are in themselves entirely different, were severed and disassociated .by the word “or.” There can be no commission without an appointment, but there may be an appointment which is not succeeded bjr a commission. The latter is merely the evidence of the former. Appointing and commissioning are distinct acts. (Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch, 137; Oollins v. TJ. 8., 15 C. Cls. R., 31; Kilbvrn v. TJ. 8., Id., 17; Young v. TJ. 8., 19 C. Cls. R., 153; Bennett v. TJ. 8., Id., 385). Until the passage of the act of 1897 commissions and appointments had been treated as and given the effect of being one and inseparable by the use of the word “and.”</p> <p>It is true that the disjunctive and conjunctive conjunctions are frequently used interchangeably and are sometimes synonymous, but they must not be so considered when they •can be given their ordinary and usual meaning. If no other reason could be shown for making this change, the condition of the New York and Kentucky regiments is sufficient, but every consideration of justice and equity leads to the conclusion that an officer’s pay should commence from the date he actually entered upon d

<p>ERROR TO THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS NO. 1 OF ALLEGHENY COUNTY.</p> <p>No. 32 October Term 1888, Sup. Ct.; court below, No. 407 March Term 1887, C. P. No. 1.</p> <p>On February 7, 1887, a summons in case was served in an action by Alfred Hollister against Dr. John S. Dickson and Sarah Dickson, his'wife, -to recover damages for personal injuries received through the alleged negligence of the defendants. Issue.</p> <p>At the trial on November 17, 1887, the facts appearing in evidence were substantially as follows :</p> <p>On April 10, 1886, the plaintiff, a resident of Utica, New York, was in Pittsburgh, as a traveling salesman for a drug house in New York city, and in the afternoon of that day when passing in front of property belonging to the defendants on Ninth street, in the pursuit of his business, he stepped upon the grating which covered a coal-hole in the foot way. The grating was displaced by his step upon it, and turned or slipped away, whereby the plaintiff fell into the coal-hole to his arm-pits, receiving a severe injury upon his right leg below the knee. He was confined to his bed at the St. Charles Hotel for two months, under treatment, and was off duty for still another month. Erysipelas supervened during his confinement. His testimony, as to the occurrence resulting in his injury sufficiently appears in the charge of the court below and in the opinion of this court. Dr. Orr, his physician, testified that the erysipelas set in on the sixth or seventh day; that erysipelas frequently though not usually followed wounds, but if there had been -no wound there would have been no erysipelas. Other witnesses were called by the plaintiff to prove his injuries, the resultant suffering and the expenses incurred, when he rested.</p> <p>The defendants called Thomas Johnson, an employee of the defendants -who had charge of the building in front of which the injury occurred, and who testified that the coal-hole was not in use at the time, and he had secured the grat