RAILROAD COMPANY
v.
UNITED STATES
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The Philadelphia and Baltimore Central Railroad Company sought compensation from the federal government for carrying mails between Philadelphia and Chester from 1873 to 1877, claiming it had been underpaid during part of that period. The Supreme Court affirmed the lower court's judgment, holding that the railroad company was estopped from recovering compensation for the period from July 1873 to December 1875 because it had silently acquiesced to the Postmaster-General's payment calculations during that time without protest, and allowing recovery would result in double payment to the government.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Mr. Justice Miller delivered the opinion of the court.'
The Philadelphia and Baltimore Central Railroad Company brought suit in the Court of Claims for the amount which it asserted to be due for carrying the 'mails between the city of Philadelphia and Chester, from Julyyl, 1873, until March 31, 1877, and recovered a-judgment for what was claimed as to all the time mentioned except the period between July 1, 1873, and December, 1875.
The service was rendered under a contract to carry by rail the mails from Philadelphia to Port Deposit, in the State of Maryland. Part of the road over which they were carried lies between Philadelphia and Chester, and it belonged’ to the Philadelphia, Wilmington, and Baltimore Railroad Company. This latter company also carried mails over its own road between these points and continuously to Baltimore.
After the passage of the act of March 3, 1873, e. 231, the Postmaster-General required all the mails carried over these routes to be weighed, and made repeated adjustments of the sums due to each company, and the amounts so found were paid, and received without objection or protest from July 1, 1873, to Dec. 4, 1875. At that date the claimant notified the Postmastei-General that he had not been paying it enough, — in fact, had only been paying it for the distance between Chester and Port Deposit. It turned out that the Philadelphia, Wilmington, and Baltimore Railroad Company had been receiving the compensation for all the mails’ carried over its road between Philadelphia and Chester, though the claimant had the contract for so much, of them as went from Philadelphia to Port Deposit and intermediate points. The Postmaster-General insisted that he was right, and refused to pay the claimant, though the mails were still carried under the then existing contracts until March 31, 1877.
The Court of Claims found in favor of the claimant, and rendered judgment for the sum due after the notification and demand of Dec. 4, 1875, but held that the company was es-topped by its acquiescence in the adjustments and the payments it had received without objection or protest, from July 1, 1873, to that period. The claimant appealed.
In-this we think the Court of Claims was right. It must be held to have known on what basis of weight and distance these adjustments were made. They were made frequently, and the sums which, by those adjustments, were due to each company were paid monthly or quarterly.
If the claimant, during all this time, stood by contentedly and saw the money which it now claims paid to the other company, and received and receipted for the money paid it on that foundation, it would be inequitable to permit it now to recover, and thus make the government pay twice. For the time the mails were carried after this notice or assertion of the present 'claim it has recovered judgment, and the government has not appealed. For what it lost by its neglect in making claim on these settlements when receiving payment, it must submit to loss.
Judgment affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
ST. Louis v. United States, 268 U.S. 169 (U.S. 1925)…mpare Clyde [*178] v. United States, 13 Wall 38. The Railway was entitled to judgment for the amount wrongly deducted by the Auditor. Affirmed in part. Reversed in part. United States v. Shrewsbury, 23 Wall. 508; Railroad Company v. United States, 103 U. S. 703; Pray v. United States, 106 U. S. 594; Central Pacific R. R. Co. v. United States, 164 U. S. 93, 99, 100; United States v. Garlinger, 169 U. S. 316; Oregon-Washington R. R. & Navigation Co. v. United States, 255 U. S. 339, 344, 345, 347—8; Western P…
-
Oregon-Washington R.R. & Navigation Co. v. United States, 255 U.S. 339 (U.S. 1921)…been improvidently given. Baltimore & Ohio R. R. Co. v. United States, 52 Ct. Clms. 468. The case therefore falls within the rulings of United States v. Bostwick, 94 U. S. 53; Baird v. United States, 96 U. S. 430, Railroad Company v. United States, 103 U. S. 703; Central Pacific R. R. Co. v. United States, 164 U. S. 93. And they have supplemental force in United States v. Edmondston, 181 U. S. 500; Utermehle v. Norment, 197 U. S. 40. These views lead to an affirmance of the judgment upon the record as it n…
-
Dollar S. S. Line v. United States, 75 F.2d 444 (9th Cir. 1935)…t. 332, 65 L. Ed. 671; United States v. Garlinger, 169 U. S. 316, 18 S. Ct. 364, 42 L. Ed. 762; Central Pacific R. R. Co. v. United States, 164 U. S. 93, 99, 17 S. Ct. 35, 41 L. Ed 362; Philadelphia & Baltimore Central Railroad Co. v. United States, 103 U. S. 703, 26 L. Ed. 454; White Oak Canal Co. v. United States (C. C. A.) 15 F.(2d) 474. Judgment affirmed. 50 S. Ct. 148, 74 L. Ed. 356.…