## Facts

- Moser, a retired U.S. Navy officer, sought increased retired rank and pay under a statute granting eligible Civil War veterans retirement in the next higher grade at three-fourths sea pay.
- The dispute turned on whether Moser’s time as a Naval Academy cadet during the Civil War qualified as “service during the civil war” under the governing statute.
- In three earlier suits in the Court of Claims, Moser recovered installments of the claimed pay differential; each judgment necessarily depended on the determination that his academy service satisfied the statute’s Civil War service requirement.
- After an intervening Court of Claims decision in another case construed the statutory scheme differently in light of later legislation excluding cadet time, the Court of Claims nonetheless treated Moser’s entitlement as fixed by its earlier judgments.
- In a fourth suit for an additional installment of the same differential, the Court of Claims again awarded judgment to Moser, relying on preclusion and reaffirming its original reading of the statute.
- The United States appealed to the Supreme Court.

## Issues

1. Whether the United States was barred by res judicata (issue preclusion/estoppel by judgment) from relitigating whether Moser’s Naval Academy cadet time during the Civil War constituted qualifying “service” under the statute in later suits for additional installments.
2. Whether the earlier determination was merely an “unmixed question of law” that could be relitigated, or a conclusive adjudication of Moser’s status and right to the increased retired pay.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment for Moser.
- Although res judicata generally does not apply to unmixed questions of law, a fact or right distinctly adjudged between the same parties cannot be disputed in a later action, even on a different demand and even if the earlier result rested on legal error.
- The prior judgments necessarily determined Moser’s qualifying status under the statute; that status determination was conclusive in later litigation between the same parties for additional installments.
- The United States was therefore estopped from denying that Moser’s academy service during the Civil War constituted qualifying service for purposes of the retired pay claim.

## Legal Principles

- Res judicata may not bar relitigation of a pure question of law in the abstract, but it does bar relitigation of a fact, right, or status distinctly adjudged in prior litigation between the same parties.
- A prior determination of an individual’s status on which recovery depends is conclusive in later actions between the same parties involving the same underlying right.
- Issue preclusion can apply even if the earlier determination was reached through an erroneous view or application of law, so long as the determination was necessary to the judgment.

## Conclusion

The Court held that earlier judgments establishing Moser’s qualifying Civil War service status for increased retired rank and pay barred the United States from relitigating that status in later suits for additional installments, notwithstanding intervening contrary reasoning elsewhere or the possibility of legal error in the earlier interpretation.


United States v. Moser, 266 U.S. 236 (1924)