Southern Pac Co v. United States, 239
| Citation | 272 U.S. 445,71 L.Ed. 343,47 S.Ct. 123 |
| Decision Date | 22 November 1926 |
| Docket Number | No. 239,239 |
| Parties | SOUTHERN PAC. CO. v. UNITED STATES |
| Court | United States Supreme Court |
Messrs. Wm. R. Harr and Charles H. Bates, both of Washington, D. C., for petitioner.
The Attorney General and Mr. Assistant Attorney General Galloway, for the United States.
Petitioner brought suit in the Court of Claims to recover for the transportation over its lines of several shipments of military impedimenta, made by the War Department in 1916 and 1917. The court allowed recovery for five items and denied recovery for certain others, which are alone the subject of controversy here. This court granted certiorari, 270 U. S. 103, 107, 46 S. Ct. 242, 70 L. Ed. 489; section 3(b) Act of February 13, 1925, c. 229, 43 Stat. 939 (Comp. St. § 1172a).
Some of the lines of petitioner were constructed with the aid of land grants by the United States under acts of Congress requiring land-aided railroads to transport troops, munitions of war, and property of the United States at rates not exceeding 50 per cent. of those paid by private schippers for the same kind of service. Sections 11, 18, Act July 27, 1866, c. 278, 14 Stat. 297, 299. See also appropriation acts for army transportation for years 1916-1917. Act March 4, 1915, c. 143, 38 Stat. 1076, 1077; Act Aug. 29, 1916, c. 418, 39 Stat. 633, 634.
At the time of the transportation, the tariff in force on petitioner's road available to the public at large, Western Classification, 54 I. C. C. No. 12, did not include any of the items of military impedimenta here involved. But petitioner then had on file with the Interstate Commerce Commission a special tariff applicable to such items when carried by passenger train or expedited service, without deduction for shipments made over land-aided or land grant roads.
Petitioner presented its bills for the expedited service in transporting the items controverted, on the basis of the rates fixed by this tariff, without deduction. The accounting officers of the government allowed the claim at a lower rate corresponding to the schedule embraced in the Western Classification applicable to emigrant movables carried by ordinary freight trains, and payment thus computed with land grant deductions was received by petitioner under protest.
The Court of Claims held that the rate on emigrant movables was inapplicable and that petitioner did not establish a lawful rate by leaving a special tariff schedule with the Interstate Commerce Commission, since there is no provision of law requiring or permitting the filing of tariffs applicable only to government transportation. But it is argued here as it was below, that since there was no rate open to the public applicable to the items involving expedited service, the shipments by representatives of the War Department, following the filing of the special tariff for that service, must be taken to establish an implied...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hughes Transp. v. United States
...become, in such respects, the only contract between the two allowed by law.'" Italics supplied. In Southern Pacific Co. v. United States, 272 U.S. 445, 47 S.Ct. 123, 71 L.Ed. 343, the court indicated that in a contract for carriage or transportation, the existence of a regularly published t......
-
Middle Atlantic Conference v. United States
...notes 35, 39, supra. 41 Bernard v. United States Aircoach, 117 F.Supp. 134, 140-142 (S.D.Cal.1953); Southern Pacific Co. v. United States, 272 U.S. 445, 47 S.Ct. 123, 71 L.Ed. 343 (1926); Thompson v. Chicago, B. & Q. R.R., 157 I.C.C. 775 (1929); Turoff v. Eastern Airlines, 129 F.Supp. 319, ......
-
Randolph v. American Airlines, Inc.
...clause in a tariff before persons affected thereby are charged with notice thereof or bound by its terms. Southern Pac. Co. v. United States, 272 U.S. 445, 47 S.Ct. 123, 71 L.Ed. 343; Pacific S. S. Co. v. Cackette, 9 Cir., 1925, 8 F.2d 259. Thus it has been held that under the Civil Aeronau......
-
Crowell v. Eastern Air Lines
...unreasonable in requiring that those terms shall be distinctly declared, and deliberately accepted." In Southern Pacific Co. v. U. S., 272 U.S. 445, 47 S.Ct. 123, 124, 71 L.Ed. 343, the Court said: 'Nor were the representatives of the War Department chargeable as a matter of law with knowle......