Baltimore Co v. United States
| Decision Date | 19 March 1923 |
| Docket Number | No. 208,208 |
| Citation | 261 U.S. 385,43 S.Ct. 384,67 L.Ed. 711 |
| Parties | BALTIMORE & O. R. CO. v. UNITED STATES |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Messrs. John F. McCarron and George E. Hamilton, both of Washington, D. C., for appellant.
Mr. Blackburn Esterline, of Washington, D. C., for the United States.
The Railroad Company filed its petition in the Court of Claims asking judgment for the amount of certain 'extraordinary expenses' which it claimed to have incurred in constructing a branch railroad to the Ordnance Depot at Curtis Bay, Maryland, under 'an informal or implied agreement' with officers of the War Department for the reimbursement of such expenses by the United States. The Dent Act, March 2, 1919, c. 94, 40 Stat. 1272 (Comp. St. Ann. Supp. 1919, §§ 3115 14/15 a-3115 14/15 e). A demurrer to this petition was sustained. 56 Ct. Cl. 377.
The allegations of the petition setting forth specifically 'the nature, terms and conditions' of the 'agreement', may be thus summarized: Having previously determined to build a branch railroad into the Curtis Bay region, for the purpose of developing new territory, the Railroad Company, in the summer of 1917, at the request of the War Department, changed in part the location of the proposed line so as to pass alongside the Ordnance Depot which the War Department planned to build. The company then contracted with a construction company for the building of the railroad to the site of the Depot, on a unit-price basis. The work was greatly delayed by the relocation of the line, and carried into the winter months. After numerous conferences as to means of expediting the work, the officers of the Department, in December, insisted that the operations at the Depot would be seriously hampered unless the company could greatly increase progress on the construction of the railroad, and that, in order to furnish track facilities for handling construction materials and freight at the Depot, it was very urgent that the railroad be completed at the earliest possible moment. Thereupon, in order to meet the urgent needs of the Department, the company, in January, 1918, determined to and did cancel the contract for constructing the railroad on a unit-price basis, and made a contract with another construction company for completing it on a cost plus basis. By working continuously, day and night, the new contractor completed the railroad to the Depot in the latter part of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hughes Transp. v. United States
...States, 152 U.S. 96, 14 S.Ct. 473, 38 L.Ed. 368; La Fontain v. Hayhurst, 89 Maine 388, 36 A. 623; Baltimore & Ohio R. R. Co. v. United States, 261 U.S. 385, 43 S.Ct. 384, 67 L.Ed. 711. In another closely related line of cases, the courts have refused to imply a contract on the part of the U......
-
Baltimore Co v. United States
...notice, and without any intimation or suggestion that compensation would be looked for or made (Baltimore & Ohio Railroad v. United States, 261 U. S. 385, 43 Sup. Ct. 384, 67 L. Ed. ——decided by this court March 19, 1923); when the defendant neither requested the services nor assented to re......
-
New York Mail & News. Transp. Co. v. United States
...330, 40 S.Ct. 518, 64 L.Ed. 935; Sutton v. United States, 256 U.S. 575, 41 S.Ct. 563, 65 L.Ed. 1099; Baltimore & Ohio R. Co. v. United States, 21 U.S. 385, 43 S.Ct. 384, 67 L.Ed. 711. However, the courts have been reluctant to hold that a Government agent lacks authority to perform an act o......
-
First National Bank of Emlenton, Pa. v. United States
...911. Accord, State of Alabama v. United States, 1931, 282 U.S. 502, 51 S.Ct. 225, 75 L.Ed. 492; Cf. Baltimore & Ohio R. Co. v. United States, 1923, 261 U.S. 385, 43 S.Ct. 384, 67 L.Ed. 711. There is no suggestion here that the United States has made any express or implicit agreement with th......