Nav Co v. United States

• Decision Date: 07 March 1921
• Docket Number: No. 134,OREGON-WASHINGTON,134
• Citation: Nav Co v. United States, 255 U.S. 339, 41 S.Ct. 329, 65 L.Ed. 677 (1921)
• Parties: R. & NAV. CO. v. UNITED STATES
• Court: U.S. Supreme Court

255 U.S. 339

41 S.Ct. 329

65 L.Ed. 677

OREGON-WASHINGTON R. & NAV. CO.

v UNITED STATES.

No. 134.

Argued Jan. 13, 1921.

Decided March 7, 1921.

Messrs. William R. Harr and Charles H. Bates, both of Washington, D. C., for appellant.

[Argument of Counsel from pages 339-342 intentionally omitted]Mr. Assistant Attorney General Davis, for the United States.

Mr. Justice McKENNAdelivered the opinion of the Court.

This action brought by appellant is for the recovery of certain balances amounting to the sum of $4,288.01, being the difference between the amounts paid at certain rates for transportation of the effects of army officers changing stations and those which it is alleged were legally chargeable.

The Court of Claims adjudged that appellant was not entitled to recover and dismissed its petition.The cost of printing the record in the case was awarded to the United States.

There were findings of fact which show that the rates were presented for payment to the proper accounting officers of the government in the regular way and payments were made by the disbursing officers of the government on vouchers certified to be correct and presented by appellant.The charges so presented and paid were at rates for such transportation over land-grant roads fixed in certain agreements known as the 'land-grant equalization agreements' by which, to quote from the findings:

'The carriers agreed, subject to certain exceptions, not material to be noted, to accept for transportation all property moved by the Quartermaster Corps, United States Army, and for which the United States is lawfully entitled to reduced rates over land-grant roads, the lowest net rates lawfully available, as derived through deductions account of landgrant distance from a lawful rate filed with the Interstate Commerce Commission from point of origin to destination at time of movement.'

That is, such freight was accepted by the carriers without prepayment of the charges therefor upon the basis of the commercial or tariff rates with appropriate deductions on account of land-grant distance as provided in the Railroad Land-Grant Acts.It is manifest, therefore, that the commercial rates were higher than the land-grant rates, and this action is to recover the difference between them and the land-grant rates presented for payment, as we have said, by appellant, and paid by the transportation officers of the government.

After stating the action to be 'for the recovery of various amounts aggregating $4,288.01, in addition to those paid on account of 176 items of freight transportation furnished to and paid for by the United States,'the court, by Mr. Justice Downey, said the action——

'is for a sum as to each item of transportation in addition to that already claimed and paid as claimed for the same items and is not for any other or different or additional service nor for omitted items.'

And further:

'The case therefore involves not only the question of the applicability of land-grant rates to this class of freight transportation, a question already decided adversely by this court, but it involves further questions as to the right, under the circumstances of the case, to now recover amounts not then claimed.'

The decision referred to is Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Ry. Co. v. United States, 50 Ct. Cl. 412, and the ground of its ruling was that the freight transported was not the property of the United States, it being the effects of army officers, and therefore was not entitled to land-grant deductions, but was subject to the commercial tariff.Necessarily, therefore, the pending case must turn on other questions for the property transported was the property of army officers, and subject, therefore, independently of other considerations, to the commercial rates.Appellant in the present case was paid sums less than those rates, and there is left for consideration only its present right to recover the difference between them and the land-grant rates; the latter being those that were paid.

The government, however, is not inclined to that limitation of the issue, and attacks the ruling of which it is the consequence, and repeats the contention decided against it in that case, and again insists that the property transported was government property and entitled to land-grant rates and all else is irrelevant.To this appellant replies that the government did not appeal from the decision and must be considered as having accepted it.The effect is rather large to attribute to mere nonaction, but we need not make further comment upon it because we think the decision of the Court of Claims was correct.The personal baggage of an officer is not property of the United States and as such entitled to transportation at land-grant rates, and we are brought to the grounds of recovery urged by appellant.

There are reasons for and against them.The assertion is of a right of action and recovery against apparently a concession during a long course of years to an explicit and contrary assertion by the government.Appellant attempts to explain the concession or, let us say, its nonaction, as the compulsion of circumstances, and of a belief of the futility of action, and now urges that it never intended to relinquish but always intended to assert its right.The record, however, has much against this explanation, or that cannot be accommodated to it, if we may ascribe to appellant the usual impulses and interest that influence men.

It 'and its predecessor company, whose properties, franchises, and accounts it acquired, charged upon its books' the transportation charges at land-grant rates and not at regular commercial rates, so rendered its bills to the government, and received payment without protest or the assertion of a greater compensation.And there was prompting to protest and such assertion.In 1904, according to a finding, 'the Union Pacific stated a claim against the United States at regular tariff rates for transportation of household goods and professional books of an officer of the army over the railroad bridge at Quincy, Ill.'The claim was disallowed, and thereafter the Union Pacific stated its accounts at land-grant rates.It also found that in 1891 and in 1904 there was conversation between the Comptroller of the Treasury and counsel in...