New York, New Haven & Hartford Railroad v. United States

Court of Claims

New York, New Haven & Hartford Railroad v. United States

60 Ct. Cl. 174, 1925 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 584, 1925 WL 2709

CourtUnited States Court of Claims

DecidedJanuary 5, 1925

DocketNo. B-44

StatusPublished

This text of 60 Ct. Cl. 174 (New York, New Haven & Hartford Railroad 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

New York, New Haven & Hartford Railroad v. United States, 60 Ct. Cl. 174, 1925 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 584, 1925 WL 2709 (cc 1925).

Pincite

Opinion

[183]*183MEMOIiANDUM. BY THE COUKT

This is one of a class of cases in which arises for determination the effect of the settlement between plaintiff and the Director General of Railroads. It was referred to a special commissioner whose report is confirmed. We refer to Beading Company and Southern Railway Company oases, decided this day, ante, pp. 131 and 156.

Some of the items involved in this suit went into the ‘"trastee account” provided for by the director general’s order No. 68 set forth in the findings. • This account is expressly excepted from the effect of the settlement agreement in section 2 of the exceptions. Manifestly the plaintiff, in whose corporate right the cause of action arose , and who is made trustee by the settlement agreement, is the proper party to sue. The deductions from plaintiff’s bills for services prior to Federal control were erroneous. See Missouri Pacific Ry. Co., 56 C. Cls. 341; Alabama amd Vicksburg Ry. Co., 56 C. Cls. 496. Certain other of the items were for charges disallowed by the accounting officers after the termination of Federal control.

Judgment is rendered for both classes of the items mentioned.

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

[183]*183MEMOIiANDUM. BY THE COUKT

This is one of a class of cases in which arises for determination the effect of the settlement between plaintiff and the Director General of Railroads. It was referred to a special commissioner whose report is confirmed. We refer to Beading Company and Southern Railway Company oases, decided this day, ante, pp. 131 and 156.

Some of the items involved in this suit went into the ‘"trastee account” provided for by the director general’s order No. 68 set forth in the findings. • This account is expressly excepted from the effect of the settlement agreement in section 2 of the exceptions. Manifestly the plaintiff, in whose corporate right the cause of action arose , and who is made trustee by the settlement agreement, is the proper party to sue. The deductions from plaintiff’s bills for services prior to Federal control were erroneous. See Missouri Pacific Ry. Co., 56 C. Cls. 341; Alabama amd Vicksburg Ry. Co., 56 C. Cls. 496. Certain other of the items were for charges disallowed by the accounting officers after the termination of Federal control.

Judgment is rendered for both classes of the items mentioned.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

60 Ct. Cl. 174, 1925 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 584, 1925 WL 2709, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/new-york-new-haven-hartford-railroad-v-united-states-cc-1925.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack