Hayes Freight Lines, Inc. v. United States

163 Ct. Cl. 265, 1963 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 186, 1963 WL 8545
CourtUnited States Court of Claims
DecidedNovember 15, 1963
DocketNo. 189-61
StatusPublished
Cited by7 cases

This text of 163 Ct. Cl. 265 (Hayes Freight Lines, Inc. v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering United States Court of Claims primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Hayes Freight Lines, Inc. v. United States, 163 Ct. Cl. 265, 1963 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 186, 1963 WL 8545 (cc 1963).

Opinion

Per Curiam :

This case was referred pursuant to Buie 45 to Lloyd Fletcher, a trial commissioner o.f this court, with directions to make findings of fact and recommendation for conclusions of law. The commissioner has done so in a report filed July 9, 1963. Plaintiff failed to file a notice in writing of intention to except to the commissioner’s findings or recommendation within the 15-day period provided therefor in Buie 46(a) and, on September 16, 1963, pursuant to the provisions of said Buie, defendant filed a motion that the court adopt the commissioner’s report as the basis for judgment, to which motion plaintiff has failed to respond, the time for doing which having expired. The case was submitted to the court without oral argument. Since the court is in agreement with the findings and recommendation of the trial commissioner, as hereinafter set forth, it hereby adopts the same as the basis for its judgment in this case. Plaintiff is therefore entitled to recover from defendant the sum of one thousand six hundred ninety-six dollars and seventy-one cents ($1,696.71) and judgment is entered for plaintiff in that amount.

OPINION OE COMMISSIONER

This case involves the jato which, as Chief Judge Jones once remarked about another military article, “having been everywhere else, is now in court.” See Union Pacific Railroad Company v. United States, 117 Ct. Cl. 534, 543; 91 F. Supp. 762. Like the Jeep (to which the Chief Judge referred), the jato has not only been an exceedingly useful device to the armed services but it has also accompanied them, particularly with their aircraft, all over the world, jato is an initial-letter contraction of the phrase “Jet Assisted Take Off.” In the words of the Army Technical Manual TM-9-1955:

jatos were initially developed to provide the additional “punch” required on normal takeoff by augmenting the power supplied by the plane’s own propulsive system * * *.

[268]*268While such additional “punch” is normally required for only a short period of time, it can be of critical importance to the accomplishment of a safe takeoff by a heavily loaded aircraft from a restricted area, such as the flight deck of an aircraft carrier. In addition to such use with aircraft, the jato has been successfully applied to the launching of missiles and target devices, the propulsion of explosive “snakes” into position for mine-clearing purposes, and the propulsion of high speed sleds, automobiles, and amphibious vehicles.

Despite its utility, the people who use it and those who transport it have encountered difficulty in agreeing on how to describe the jato. The court is now called upon to resolve the disagreement by providing the answer to the question of whether, for purposes of a classification rating under the National Motor Freight Classification, jatos are “High Explosives, N.O.I.,” as claimed by plaintiff-carrier, or are “Eocket Motors,” as claimed by defendant-shipper. To the parties, the importance of the answer to this question lies, of course, in the fact that the transportation rates applicable to the shipment of high explosives are higher than those applicable to the shipment of rocket motors.

As one of numerous common carriers so engaged,1 plaintiff transported 'by truck 85 shipments of jatos for the Departments of the Army, Navy, and Air Force during the period December 28,1954 to February 4, 1959.2 These shipments were variously described by the Government on its bills of lading in the f ollowing language:

(a) (Jet Thrust Units, Jato) Explosive Bombs
(b) Jet Thrust Units (Jato Class A) (Eockets, Motor)
tc) Jet Thrust Units Class A (Eocket Motors)
(d) Jet Thrust Units, Jato, Class A (Explosive Bombs by Analogy)
(e) Jet Thrust Units Class A Explosive
(f) Jet Thrust Units (Eocket Motors) Explosive Placard Applied
(g) Explosive Bombs (Jet Thrust Units Class A — Jato)
[269]*269(h) Jet Thrust Units Class A Explosive (Bombs Explosives)

Upon completion of the transportation services, plaintiff presented its bills therefor with charges computed on rates applicable to “High Explosives.” Defendant paid those bills as presented. On post-audit, however, the General Accounting Office decided that the transportation charges should have been computed on rates applicable to “Kocket Motors” and determined, accordingly, that plaintiff had been overpaid. The overpayments thus determined were deducted by defendant from subsequent bills submitted by plaintiff for other transportation services. Plaintiff here seeks recovery of the amounts so deducted, and the parties are agreed that, if the court should determine that plaintiff’s position is correct, then plaintiff is due from defendant the sum of $14,394.62. On the other hand, if defendant’s position is determined to be the correct one, there is due plaintiff only the sum of $1,696.71.

Since the transportation charges for these shipments are computed on the basis of a rating and rate provided in plaintiff’s tariffs as published and filed with the Interstate Commerce Commission, the problem presented becomes one of tariff interpretation.3 During the years in question, the jato by that specific name was not to be found in the National Motor Freight Classification (NMFC) No. A-2. Plaintiff asserts that the Class A jatos involved herein are high explosives and that, therefore, they are properly ratable under NMFC Item 35440, reading in pertinent part as follows:

explosives, see Buie 27:
High, noi, in barrels or boxes, * * *; or Low, noi, including Black Powder, in barrels, boxes or powder kegs.

On the other hand, defendant asserts that jatos of whatever class are merely specialized types of rocket motors and that they, therefore, are properly ratable under NMFC Item 3870-A, reading as follows:

[270]*270ammunition, Explosive, Incendiary or Gas, Smoke or Tear Producing, see Note, item 3810
$ $ $ $ *
Cartridges, cannon, blank; or Eocket Motors.4

The evidence in this case clearly demonstrates that, from a purely scientific and engineering viewpoint, the jato is simply a rocket motor adapted to specialized uses. When it was originally developed in the laboratories of the California Institute of Technology, the basic scientific principle used was the fundamental one of rocket propulsion. When various types of materials, known as “propellants”, are ignited within a combustion chamber, gases at high temperatures and pressures are generated. Upon the escape of these gases through an exit nozzle, or nozzles, thrust is provided which pushes the chamber forward under the principle of Newton’s third law of motion, i.e., that any action on an object is accompanied by an equal and opposite reaction.

However, the fact that to the scientist or engineer the jato is merely a type of rocket motor does not end the present inquiry. Just as, in another connection, the Supreme Court has felt it necessary to classify tomatoes as “vegetables” despite their botanical classification as “fruits” (Nix v.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Emery Air Freight Corp. v. United States
499 F.2d 1255 (Court of Claims, 1974)
Southern Pacific Transportation Co. v. United States
454 F.2d 740 (Court of Claims, 1972)
C & H Transportation Co., Inc. v. The United States
436 F.2d 480 (Court of Claims, 1971)
Goodman v. United States
390 F.2d 915 (Court of Claims, 1968)
Hughes Transportation, Inc. v. United States
169 Ct. Cl. 63 (Court of Claims, 1965)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
163 Ct. Cl. 265, 1963 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 186, 1963 WL 8545, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hayes-freight-lines-inc-v-united-states-cc-1963.