CAIRO, TRUMAN & SOUTHERN RAILROAD COMPANY
v.
UNITED STATES ET AL.
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 Cairo, Truman & Southern Railroad Company sued the United States for breach of a settlement agreement regarding railroad claims, arguing the Director General provided no consideration beyond what was legally required. The Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal of the claim, holding that because the settlement agreement was executed under seal, it was binding and enforceable regardless of whether adequate consideration was provided, and the railroad's allegations did not establish legal duress to void the agreement.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Mr. Justice Brandéis delivered the opinion of the Court.
This is an appeal from the judgment of the Court of Claims which dismissed the petition on demurrer. Plaintiff’s claim is in character the same as that sued on in St. Louis, Kennett & Southeastern R. R. Co. v. United States, decided this day, ante, p. 346.. It is presented in the same manner; and the Government makes the same defense. The provision for settlement and release of claims here relied upon is substantially the same as in that case. But, in other respects, the contract is entirely different. It is in the form, known as the per diem, contract, which contains no operative provision other than that providing for settlement and release of claims.. The rést of the dócu-, ment consists of recitals and the testimonium clause. The consideration for the settlement and release is therein stated to be “ obtaining the advantages of the two days’ free time or,reclaim allowance and such other co-operation as is accorded to it by the Director General of Railroads.”
The petition alleges that the Director General gave no more than he would have been obliged by law to give had no agreement been made. This is not true.' But it is,- in any event, without legal significance. The plaintiff’s agreement embodying the release was under seal.
Hence, it is binding even if without a consideration. The petition alleges, also; that the agreement “ was accépted by the officers of the .plaintiff for the purpose of saviríg for themselves such rights, privileges,- and conveniences as were indicated by the Director General, and was signed for this purpose only and not otherwise, and for the supposed concessions set out in the contract itself.” The allegation does not charge facts constituting legal duress. United States v. Child & Co., 12 Wall. 232, 244. Nor is it claimed that the agreement is void because of duress.
As in the St. Louis Company case, the Director General clearly had authority to enter into the agreement in question.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (14 total)
-
ST. Louis v. United States, 268 U.S. 169 (U.S. 1925)…au v. United States, 95 U. S. 61; Francis v. United States, 96 U. S. 354; De Arnaud v. United States, 151 U. S. 483; St. Louis, Kennett & Southeastern R. R. Co. v. United States, 267 U. S. 346. In Cairo, Truman & Southern R. R. Co. v. United States, 267 U. S. 350, the release was under seal. United States v. Adams, 7 Wall. 463, 479; United States v. Mowry, 154 U. S. 564; United States v. Morgan, 154 U. S. 565. Baird v. United States, 96 U. S. 430; Murphy v. United States, 104 U. S. 464. Savage v. United S…
-
Caesar v. Burgess, 103 F.2d 503 (10th Cir. 1939)…s not open to doubt. Where authorized by law and executed in the prescribed manner, it operates as an alienation within the meaning of the acts of Congress. Taylor v. Parker, 235 U.S. 42, 35 S.Ct. 22, 59 L.Ed. 121; Blundell v. Wallace, 267 U.S. 373, 45 S.Ct. 247, 69 L.Ed. 664; Hayes v. Barringer, 8 Cir., 168 F. 221; Semple v. Baken, 39 Okl. 563, 135 P. 1141; Letts v. Letts, 73 Okl. 313, 176 P. 234. It would not serve any useful purpose to undertake to delimit the scope of the act in respect to removal, or…
-
Homovich v. Chapman, 191 F.2d 761 (D.C. Cir. 1951)…trict Court must be and is hereby Affirmed. . Form 5-109, February, 1939. , 36 Stat. 856, 37 Stat. 678, 25 U.S.C.A. § 373. . This Act did not apply to the Five Civilized Tribes or to the Osage Indians. . Blundell v. Wallace, 1925, 267 U.S. 373, 45 S.Ct. 247, 69 L.Ed. 664; Blanset v. Cardin, 1921, 256 U.S. 319, 41 S.Ct. 519, 65 L.Ed. 950; Hanson v. Hoffman, 10 Cir., 1940, 113 F. 2d 780. . See eases cited note 4 supra; also Nimrod v. Jandron, 1928, 58 App.D.C. 38, 24 F. 2d 613. . 60 Stat. 243 (1946), 5…
Previewing 3 of 14 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- United States v. Child & Co., 12 Wall. 232 (U.S. 1870)