Union Pac Ry Co v. United States
| Decision Date | 21 December 1885 |
| Citation | 29 L.Ed. 584,6 S.Ct. 325,116 U.S. 154 |
| Parties | UNION PAC. RY. CO. v. UNITED STATES. Filed |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
John F. Dillon, S. Bartlett, S. Shellabarger, and J. M. Wilson, for the motion.
Sol. Gen. Goode and Asst. Atty. Gen. Howard, in opposition.
This suit was brought by the Union Pacific Railway Company against the United States under sections 5260 and 5261 of the Revised Statutes to recover among other things the price of the transportation of mails by the company in accordance with the requirements of its charter. These sections are as follows:
One of the principal controversies in the case was as to what would be 'fair and reasonable rates of compensation' for such transportation, 'not to exceed the amount paid by private parties for the same kind of service.' When the case was here on a former appeal, this court, adopting the ruling of the court of claims, said that it would be proper And we also said that, 'upon a retrial, if the parties do not agree upon the amount or upon the rule of computation, the compensation, at fair and reasonable rates, must be determined upon a consideration of all facts material to the issue, not to exceed the amounts paid by private parties for the same kind of service.' Union Pac. R. Co. v. U. S., 104 U. S. 667. Accordingly, when the case went back, evidence was offered to show (1) what the public paid for express service, and the similarity of this service in its nature and cost to the mail service; (2) the earnings per car of the cars employed in the passenger service; (3) what the company charged and the public paid per pound for carrying extra baggage; (4) what the company charged and the public paid for carrying first-class freight on passenger trains, and how much more it was worth to carry the same class of matter in passenger trains; and (5) that connecting roads allowed the company on through business 50 per cent. more than they...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Luckenbach Co v. United States
...U. S. 37, 38, 39, 24 L. Ed. 696; McClure v. United States, 116 U. S. 145, 6 S. Ct. 321, 29 L. Ed. 572; Union Pacific R. Co. v. United States, 116 U. S. 154, 6 S. Ct. 325, 29 L. Ed. 584; same case, 116 U. S. 402, 6 S. Ct. 631, 29 L. Ed. 677; District of Columbia v. Barnes, 197 U. S. 146, 150......
-
Stilz v. United States
...101 U. S. 473, 476, 25 L. Ed. 800. Our consideration of the case is confined to questions of law. Union Pacific Railway Co. v. United States, 116 U. S. 154, 157, 6 S. Ct. 325, 29 L. Ed. 584; Keokuk & Hamilton Bridge Co. v. United States, 260 U. S. 125, 43 S. Ct. 37, 67 L. Ed. 165. And the s......
-
Hathaway v. First Nat Bank of Cambridge
...be made. The Francis Wright, 105 U. S. 381, 387; McClure v. U. S., 116 U. S. 145, 152, 6 Sup. Ct. Rep. 321; Union Pac. R. Co. v. U. S., 116 U. S. 154, 157, 6 Sup. Ct. Rep. 325; Insurance Co. v. Allen, 121 U. S. 67, 71, 7 Sup. Ct. Rep. 821. Those three assignments of error amount, in substan......
-
Keokuk Hamilton Bridge Co v. United States
...as giving more force to the contention that it was taken. This, of it may be true that deliberate action in some United States, 116 U. S. 154, 6 Sup. Ct. 325, 29 L. Ed. 584; Talbert v. United States, 155 U. S. 45, 15 Sup. Ct. 4, 39 L. Ed. 64. We must assume, as we have stated from the findi......