United States v. Yale Transport Corp.
Decision Date | 08 June 1960 |
Citation | 184 F. Supp. 42 |
Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, v. YALE TRANSPORT CORP., Defendant. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York |
S. Hazard Gillespie, Jr., U. S. Atty., New York City, Sherman J. Saxl, Asst. U. S. Atty., New York City, of counsel, for plaintiff, United States.
Austin, Burns, Appell & Smith, New York City, Joseph W. Burns, John P. Cuddahy, New York City, of counsel, for defendant, Yale Transport Corp.
The Government commenced this action in March 1959 to recover alleged shipping overcharges made by the defendant, a motor vehicle common carrier,1 for the transportation of Government property over a ten-year period, from August 1943 to December 1953.
The defendant moves for summary judgment pursuant to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U. S.C.A., on the grounds that: (1) all claims subsequent to June 29, 1949, the date of enactment of 49 U.S.C.A. § 304a, are time-barred by the two-year limitation period provided therein; (2) all claims prior to August 14, 1951, were released by virtue of the discharge in bankruptcy of the carrier entered on that day; and (3) those claims which accrued prior to June 29, 1949, to the extent they were not released by the discharge in bankruptcy, are time-barred by the six-year statutes of limitation of New York and New Jersey. Civil Practice Act, § 48; N.J.S.A. 2A:14-1.
The Government contends that neither the two-year limitation period contained in 49 U.S.C.A. § 304a, nor the state acts apply to it.
As to the discharge in bankruptcy, the Government disputes that notice of the bankruptcy proceedings was duly given to the appropriate agency.
The issues to be considered can readily be narrowed. There is no substance to the defendant's contention that the Government is barred by state statutes of limitation from recovery of overcharges for transportation—claims which rest upon a federal statute.2 The United States is not bound by state statutes of limitation unless Congress provides it shall be,3 and no such provision is suggested.
Thus, we proceed to consider whether section 304a(2) is applicable to the Government when it brings a suit for overcharges by a common carrier.
The Government, of course, relies upon the well-established doctrine, based upon public policy considerations, that the sovereign is not bound by statutes of limitation unless the congressional purpose that they shall apply is clear and undoubted.4
The question is whether Congress clearly manifested that the limitation provision in the act shall be binding upon the Government in an action brought by it against carriers to recover overcharges. I hold that it did not and that the limitation provision is inapplicable.
The precise issue was considered by the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit in United States v. De Queen & Eastern R. Co., 1959, 271 F.2d 597, which reversed a district court ruling to the contrary.5 There, as here, the Government brought an action to recover overcharges in freight rates collected by the defendant-carrier. Since the defendant in De Queen was a railroad, rather than a motor carrier, the statute of limitations in question was 49 U.S. C.A. § 16(3),6 similar in all important respects to section 304a.7 In holding that the Government was not bound by the two-year limitation,8 the Eighth Circuit was much influenced by section 322 of the Transportation Act of 1940, under which the Government has the right to recover, without limitation, overcharges from carriers by deducting such amounts from "any amount subsequently found to be due such carrier."9 The Court found it hard to reconcile this unlimited post-audit right with a two-year limitation on actions at law for the recovery of the same overcharges.
This Court, for the same reasons, is persuaded that the conclusion that Congress did not intend that the Government was to be bound by the two-year limitation of section 304a is sound and should be followed.
The conclusion of an absence of such purpose is fortified by the fact that when Congress in 1958 amended sections 304a and 66 of Title 49, it specifically made the limitation provision applicable to the United States under both sections.11
The defendant makes the further argument that the Government by contract agreed to subject itself to the statute of limitation applicable to commercial carriers. This contention is based upon the Government bills of lading issued with the respective shipments and those issued by the carrier upon receipt of the merchandise, described as "uniform motor carrier straight domestic" bills of lading.
The Government bill of lading provided that:
The carrier's form provided:
These provisions clearly relate to actions to recover damages to merchandise or based upon nondelivery of shipments. The defendant concedes that neither provision concerns suits by a shipper to recover overcharges but it contends that such "a provision is unnecessary as it is covered by commercial law, which is embodied in the Interstate Commerce Act."
In the absence of any provision in either document with respect to an overcharge action which specifically imposed a two-year limitation period or incorporated by reference the limitation period of section 304a,12 there is no basis upon which to infer the Government's consent to be bound.13
The defendant next urges that the carrier's discharge in bankruptcy on August 14, 1951, is a complete bar to its claims which accrued prior thereto. The claims for overcharges were not scheduled, and hence the discharge would not release them unless the Government "had notice or actual knowledge of the proceedings in bankruptcy."14 The defendant contends that three notices of creditors' meetings mailed to the "United States of America, c/o Secretary of Treasury, Washington, D. C." and "Collector of Internal Revenue, Washington, D.C." constituted "notice" within the meaning of 11 U.S.C.A. § 35.
The schedules filed by the bankrupt listed taxes due to the United States of America as follows: "United States Collector of Internal Revenue, $10,824.10." The Government contends that these notices were directed to its tax collection agencies in connection with the unpaid taxes listed in the schedules; that the Department of the Treasury had no dealings with defendant or connection of any kind with the shipments of the merchandise, upon which the overcharge claims arose; and that under the circumstances, the mailing of the notices to the Treasury Department clearly related to the tax arrears and was not the "notice" contemplated by the statute.
Obligations due to the Government are entitled to priority in payment under the Bankruptcy Act. The taxes which the carrier did schedule were entitled to a first priority.15 Such other debts as might have been due to the Government from the defendant were entitled to a subordinate priority.16 Further, as to claims for overcharges, the Government was in a position, by reason of post-audit procedure, to offset such claims against any moneys which might have been due to the defendant. However, the defendant failed to schedule any such claims, liquidated or otherwise, based upon the shipments it carried for the Government. As to these items, its dealings were exclusively with agencies of the Government having no direct concern with the collection of taxes. It performed the transportation services through various governmental departments or agencies, principally the Army; they were paid for by the General Accounting Office, hereafter referred to as GAO. Thus, the agencies, which made the shipments upon which the overcharge claims rest, were not listed in the schedules; no notice of proceedings was sent to them, nor was any sent to the GAO, although the overcharge claims were the subject of correspondence between the GAO and the defendant.
The GAO was established in 1921 and was to be "independent of the executive departments and under the control and direction of the Comptroller General * * *."17 So it was in 1950 when the bankruptcy schedules were filed. The defendant was fully aware, as of the bankruptcy date, that post-audit by the Comptroller General might well subject it to liability for overcharges or permit deduction of claimed overpayments from any amounts due it. The Government was required by section 322 of the Transportation Act of 194018 to pay for transportation of Government property upon presentation of bills by the carrier prior...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Feliciano v. Romney
...Medical Center v. Rockefeller, 305 F.Supp. 1256, 1266-1267 (E.D.N.Y.1969) (subsequent history omitted;) cf. United States v. Yale Transp. Corp., 184 F.Supp. 42, 48 (S.D.N.Y.1960). 96 Norwalk Core v. Norwalk Redevelopment Agency, 395 F.2d 920, 937 (2d Cir. 1968). 97 Western Addition Communit......
-
UNITED STATES, ETC. v. Kurtz
...that an agency is authorized to adopt a shorter statute of limitations than Congress has provided. See United States v. Yale Transport Corp., 184 F.Supp. 42, 46 n.13 (S.D. N.Y.1960). However, we need not and do not reach this question 13 The corresponding section of the current Bankruptcy C......
-
United States v. Framen Steel Supply Co.
...Inc. v. United States, 144 F.Supp. 548, 550 (S.D.N.Y.1956), aff'd, 255 F.2d 810 (2d Cir. 1958); but cf. United States v. Yale Transport Corp., 184 F.Supp. 42, 45-46 n. 13 (S.D.N.Y.1960). As such, AID has authority to adopt the D.C.Code and specifically § 2-725 as governing law in its contra......
-
Stewart v. United States, 7365
...Section 204a (49 U.S.C. § 304a) was interposed in a Government suit against a motor carrier for overcharges in United States v. Yale Transport Corporation, D.C., 184 F.Supp. 42. Following the De Queen case, the District Court for the Southern District of New York held the statute inapplicab......