B-97103, OCT. 23, 1959
Highlights
RETIRED: REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR LETTER DATED AUGUST 15. WHILE YOU WERE SERVING AS AN OFFICER IN THE UNITED STATES NAVY. WE HAVE RECEIVED FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY YOUR LETTER DATED JULY 7. WE ADVISED YOU THAT SINCE DURING THE PERIOD INVOLVED YOU OCCUPIED QUARTERS IN THE PANAMA CANAL ZONE WHICH WERE UNDER THE JURISDICTION OF THE PANAMA CANAL. THE AMOUNT WHICH ACCRUED TO YOU AS RENTAL ALLOWANCE FOR SUCH PERIOD WAS RESTRICTED BY THE ACT OF APRIL 26. YOU REQUEST FAVORABLE CONSIDERATION OF YOUR CLAIM ON THE GROUND THAT THE DISBURSING OFFICERS CONCERNED WERE NOT INFORMED OF SUCH RESTRICTIVE STATUTORY PROVISIONS AND ON THE GROUND THAT THE PAYMENTS WERE RECEIVED IN GOOD FAITH. THE FACT THAT THE DISBURSING OFFICERS CONCERNED MAY NOT HAVE KNOWN OF THE RESTRICTIVE PROVISIONS OF THE CITED ACTS CONSTITUTES NO BASIS FOR THE ALLOWANCE OF YOUR CLAIM.
B-97103, OCT. 23, 1959
TO COMMANDER CHESTER B. PEAKE, USN, RETIRED:
REFERENCE IS MADE TO YOUR LETTER DATED AUGUST 15, 1959, REFERRING TO OUR DECISION DATED NOVEMBER 17, 1958, B-97103, AND REQUESTING THAT WE AGAIN CONSIDER YOUR CLAIM FOR REFUND OF RENTAL ALLOWANCE PAID TO YOU FOR THE PERIOD FROM JANUARY 12 TO OCTOBER 2, 1935, AND SUBSEQUENTLY CHECKED AGAINST YOUR PAY ACCOUNT AS BEING ERRONEOUSLY PAID, WHILE YOU WERE SERVING AS AN OFFICER IN THE UNITED STATES NAVY. ALSO, WE HAVE RECEIVED FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY YOUR LETTER DATED JULY 7, 1959, WITH ENCLOSURES, CONCERNING THE SAME MATTER.
IN OUR DECISION DATED NOVEMBER 17, 1958, WE ADVISED YOU THAT SINCE DURING THE PERIOD INVOLVED YOU OCCUPIED QUARTERS IN THE PANAMA CANAL ZONE WHICH WERE UNDER THE JURISDICTION OF THE PANAMA CANAL, THE AMOUNT WHICH ACCRUED TO YOU AS RENTAL ALLOWANCE FOR SUCH PERIOD WAS RESTRICTED BY THE ACT OF APRIL 26, 1934, 48 STAT. 614, AND THE ACT OF APRIL 10, 1935, 49 STAT. 124, TO THE RENTAL RATE CHARGED FOR SUCH QUARTERS ON MARCH 5, 1934. YOU REQUEST FAVORABLE CONSIDERATION OF YOUR CLAIM ON THE GROUND THAT THE DISBURSING OFFICERS CONCERNED WERE NOT INFORMED OF SUCH RESTRICTIVE STATUTORY PROVISIONS AND ON THE GROUND THAT THE PAYMENTS WERE RECEIVED IN GOOD FAITH.
THE FACT THAT THE DISBURSING OFFICERS CONCERNED MAY NOT HAVE KNOWN OF THE RESTRICTIVE PROVISIONS OF THE CITED ACTS CONSTITUTES NO BASIS FOR THE ALLOWANCE OF YOUR CLAIM. UPON THE ENACTMENT THEREOF, SUCH ACTS CONSTITUTED LEGAL PUBLIC NOTICE TO ALL PERSONS CONCERNED.
CONCERNING YOUR STATEMENT THAT THE PAYMENTS WERE RECEIVED IN GOOD FAITH, THE COURT STATED IN UNITED STATES V. NORTHWESTERN NATIONAL BANK AND TRUST COMPANY OF MINNEAPOLIS, 35 F.SUPP. 484, 486, THAT THE RECIPIENT OF AN ERRONEOUS PAYMENT RESULTING FROM A MISTAKE BY A PUBLIC OFFICIAL, MUST IN EQUITY MAKE RESTITUTION, SINCE RESTITUTION RESULTS IN NO LOSS TO HIM, HE HAVING RECEIVED SOMETHING FOR NOTHING. IN WISCONSIN CENTRAL RAILROAD COMPANY V. UNITED STATES, 164 U.S. 190, IT WAS HELD THAT PERSONS WHO RECEIVED ERRONEOUS PAYMENTS FROM THE UNITED STATES THROUGH ADMINISTRATIVE ERROR OF ITS OFFICERS, ARE BOUND IN EQUITY AND GOOD CONSCIENCE TO MAKE RESTITUTION. EVEN FINANCIAL HARDSHIP WHICH MIGHT RESULT FROM COLLECTION FROM THE RECIPIENT OR THE FACT THAT THE PAYMENT MAY HAVE BEEN RECEIVED IN GOOD FAITH "CANNOT STAND AGAINST THE INJUSTICE OF KEEPING WHAT NEVER RIGHTFULLY BELONGED TO HIM AT ALL.' UNITED STATES V. BENTLEY, 107 F.2D 382, 384.
ACCORDINGLY, WE FIND NO BASIS FOR ANY CHANGE IN THE CONCLUSION REACHED BY US IN OUR DECISION DATED NOVEMBER 17, 1958.