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 sought reimbursement for carrying gold shipment and accompanying guards from Philadelphia to Boston, claiming the service fell outside its mail-carrying contract obligations. The Supreme Court affirmed dismissal of the claim, holding that because the railroad accepted payment without protest for the service rendered as mail service, it could not subsequently recharacterize the transaction to avoid its contractual mail-carrying obligations regardless of technical compliance with postal regulations.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Mr. Justice Holmes delivered the opinion of the court.
This is a claim for $5,020.65 as the claimant’s proportion of joint through express rates for carrying $5,000,000 in gold from Philadelphia to Boston, and the passenger fares for seven men who accompanied the gold as guards from New York to Springfield, Massachusetts, that being the distance that the claimant carried the gold. The Court of Claims ordered the petition to be dismissed.
On October 23, 1914, the gold was delivered by the Treasury Department to the Postoffice Department in one thousand sealed bags, each weighing-18% pounds, which were placed in one hundred and sixty-seven locked mail pouches labelled “Boston, Mass.” The Treasury prepaid the postage required for fourth class mail matter, at parcel post rates, amounting to $420. On reaching New York the gold was placed in a vault subject to the call of the chief clerk of Railway Mail Service. The next day the chief clerk and other railway officials took the pouches to the Grand Central Station where they were placed in a postal' car attached to a regular passenger train of the claimant. The car with its contents was carried to Springfield and there delivered to the Boston and Albany road. It carried with the gold seven officials of the Railway Mail Service, all having the requisite travel commissions from the Postmaster General. No protest was made by any carrier and the claimant was paid and received without protest the amount fixed by readjustment orders for carrying the mail over its route.
The claimant admitting that it could not demand additional pay for hauling the mails, New York, New Haven & Hartford R. R. Co. v. United States, 251 U. S. 123, argues that the transaction was not “ mail service ” such as it had contracted to perform or within the classification of mail matter. It urges that in view of the weight limit, eleven pounds, in force July 1, 1913, when its four-year term began; tbe weight of these bags, 18% pounds; of the contents, gold; and of the fact that the bags were sealed and placed in locked pouches, the-Postmaster General '..could not make the service mail service if he tried.' We think it unnecessary to discuss the argument, if there is anything in it. The service here, righ.tly or wrongly, was demanded as mail service, was rendered as mail service and was paid for without protest as mail service, Whether the Treasury technically complied with all the requirements of the statute concerning postal service did hot matter to the claimant. By giving its claim a different name'from that passed upon in New York, New Haven & Hartford R. R. Co. v. United States, 251 U. S. 123, 127, the claimant does not bétter its case.
Judgment affirmed.
Mr. Justice Pitney was absent and took nó part in the decision.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
ST. Louis v. United States, 268 U.S. 169 (U.S. 1925)…tates v. Garlinger, 169 U. S. 316; Oregon-Washington R. R. & Navigation Co. v. United States, 255 U. S. 339, 344, 345, 347—8; Western Pacific R. R. Co. v. United States, 255 U. S. 349, 353-5; New York, New Haven & Hartford R. R. Co. v. United States 258 U. S. 32, 34; Louisville & Nashville R. R. Co. v. United States 258 U. S. 374, 375; Louisville & Nashville R. R. Co. v. United States, 267 U. S. 395. Compare St. Louis. Hay & Grain Co. v. United States, 191 U. S. 159, 164. United States v. Justice, 14 Wall.…
-
Louisville & Nashville R.R. Co. v. United States, 267 U.S. 395 (U.S. 1925)…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 coal from cars to boats. The tariff rates on this coal for bunkerage and pu…
-
Freund v. United States, 260 U.S. 60 (U.S. 1922)…Ry. Co. v. United States, 198 U. S. 385; Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. United States, 225 U. S. 640; New York, New Haven & Hartford R. R. Co. v. United States, 251 U. S. 123; and New York, New Haven & Hartford R. R. Co. v. United States, 258 U. S. 32), which are cited on behalf of the United States. We think that the contractors are entitled to recover the reasonable value of their services for the 16 months including a fair profit. This relieves us of considering the conclusion reached by the…
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
- New York v. United States, 251 U.S. 123 (U.S. 1919)