NEW YORK, NEW HAVEN & HARTFORD 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 New York, New Haven & Hartford Railroad Company sued the United States to recover additional compensation for carrying mails, claiming either that the Post Office Department had misconstrued the applicable statute or that it had taken the railroad's property without just compensation. The Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal of the suit, holding that railroads were not legally required to carry mails before 1916, and therefore the railroad's voluntary acceptance of mail service with knowledge of the government's intended payment rates precluded any claim for an implied contract to pay more or for a taking of property.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Mr. Justice McReynolds delivered the opinion of the court.
Appellant sued-the United States to recover the difference between amounts,-received through the Post Office Department and what it claims should have been paid for its services in carrying the mails during a series of-years, ending June .30, 1914. The demand is based upon implied contracts alleged to arise from the following circumstances. First. — Acceptance and transportation of the mails in reliance upon § 4002, Rev. Stats., as amended. This directs payment of specified sums per mile per annum according to weights; and the claim is"that because the Post Office Department improperly construed and applied it, appellant received much less than it should have. Second. — Acceptance and transportation of the mails under orders-and coercion of the Post Office Department, followed by failure to allow reasonable compensation therefor. Appellant claims its property was taken for public use and adequate compensation must be paid.
Concerning the challenged interpretation and application of § 4002, Rev. Stats., resulting in payments during each four-year term, upon the basis of weights taken immediately prior to the beginning of the same instead of annually, it suffices to say that the action taken accords with prior practice followed for many years; the letter of the statute permits it; the carrier submitted with full knowledge; and, impliedly at least, it was sanctioned by this court in Delaware, Lackawanna & Western R. R. Co. v. United States, 249 U. S. 385.
We think it must be treated as settled doctrine that prior to the Act of July 28, 1916, c. 261, 39 Stat. 412, 429, — with the exception of certain roads aided by land grants — railroads -were not required by law to carry the mails. Eastern R. R. Co. v. United States, 129 U. S. 391, 394; Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. United States, 225 U. S. 640, 650; Delaware, Lackawanna & Western R. R. Co. v. United States, supra. And as appellant voluntarily accepted and performed the service with knowledge of what the United States intended to pay, it cannot now claim an implied contract for a greater sum. It may be that any railroad by failing to carry the mails would incur the hostility of those living along its lines and as a consequence suffer serious financial losses; but the fear of such results certainly does not amount to compulsion by the United States and cannot constitute the basis of a justiciable claim against them for taking property.
The Court of Claims (53 Ct. Clms. 222) dismissed the petition upon demurrer, and its judgment is
Affirmed.
Mr. Justice Beandeis dissents.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
United States v. Griffin, 303 U.S. 226 (U.S. 1938)…mpulsory "at adequate compensation to be judicially determined,” Atchison, T. & S. F. Ry. v. United States, 225 U. S. 640, 650, but under contracts voluntarily entered into with the Postmaster General. New York, N. H. & H. R. Co. v. United States, 251 U. S. 123, 127. For the legislation prior to 1916 concerning compensation of railroads for carrying the mail, see Railway Mail Pay, 56 I. C. C. 1, 3-7. For the several proposals prior to 1916 to modify the laws governing such transportation, see Report of Po…
-
ST. Louis v. United States, 268 U.S. 169 (U.S. 1925)…Ry. v. United States, 198 U. S. 385; Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. United States, 225 U. S. 640, 650; Delaware, Lackawanna & Western R. R. Co. v. United States, 249 U. S. 385, New York, New Haven & Hartford R R. Co. v. United [*177] States, 251 U. S. 123, 127; St. Louis S. W. Ry Co., v. United States 262 U. S. 70. Compare United States v. Bostwick, 94 U S. 53, 67; United States v. Martin, 94 U. S. 400; Willard, Sutherland & Co. v. United States, 262 U. S. 489, 498. Nicholas v. United States, 257 U.…
-
Louisville & Nashville R.R. Co. v. United States, 267 U.S. 395 (U.S. 1925)…protest against any land-grant deductions. It is bound by its acquiescence and consent and cannot recover the amounts deducted. Oregon-Washington R. R. Co. v. United States, 255 U. S. 339, 345; New York, New Haven & Hartford R. R. v. United States, 251 U. S. 123, 127; New York, New Haven & Hartford R. R. v. United States, 258 U. S. 32; Louisville & Nashville R. R. v. United States, 258 U. S. 374. The Court of Claims was right in disallowing additional pay for switching cars to wharves or for transferring c…
Previewing 3 of 8 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Atchison v. United States, 225 U.S. 640 (U.S. 1912)
- E. R.R. Co. v. United States, 129 U.S. 391 (U.S. 1889)
- Delaware v. United States, 249 U.S. 385 (U.S. 1919)