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

Supreme Court

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

251 U.S. 123, 40 S. Ct. 67, 64 L. Ed. 182, 1919 U.S. LEXIS 1858

Supreme Court of the United States·Decided December 15, 1919·No. 74·Published·Cited by 15 cases

Opinion

Mr. Justice McReynolds

delivered the opinion of the court.

Appellant sued- the United States to recover the difference between amounts,-received through the Post Office Department and what it claims should have been paid for its services in carrying the mails during a series of-years, ending June .30, 1914. The demand is based upon implied contracts alleged to arise from the following circumstances. First. — Acceptance and transportation of the mails in reliance upon § 4002, Rev. Stats., as amended. This directs payment of specified sums per mile per annum according to weights; and the claim is"that because the Post Office Department improperly construed and applied it, appellant received much less than it should have. Second. — Acceptance and transportation of the mails under orders-and coercion of the Post Office Department, followed by failure to allow reasonable compensation therefor. Appellant claims its property was taken for public use and adequate compensation must be paid.

Concerning the challenged interpretation and application of § 4002, Rev. Stats., resulting in payments during each four-year term, upon the basis of weights taken *127 immediately prior to the beginning of the same instead of annually, it suffices to say that the action taken accords with prior practice followed for many years; the letter of the statute permits it; the carrier submitted with full knowledge; and, impliedly at least, it was sanctioned by this court in Delaware, Lackawanna & Western R. R. Co. v. United States, 249 U. S. 385.

We think it must be treated as settled doctrine that prior to the Act of July 28, 1916, c. 261, 39 Stat. 412, 429, — with the exception of certain roads aided by land grants — railroads -were not required by law to carry the mails. Eastern R. R. Co. v. United States, 129 U. S. 391, 394; Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. United States, 225 U. S. 640, 650; Delaware, Lackawanna & Western R. R. Co. v. United States, supra. And as appellant voluntarily accepted and performed the service with knowledge of what the United States intended to pay, it cannot now claim an implied contract for a greater sum. It may be that any railroad by failing to carry the mails would incur the hostility of those living along its lines and as a consequence suffer serious financial losses; but the fear of such results certainly does not amount to compulsion by the United States and cannot constitute the basis of a justiciable claim against them for taking property.

The Court of Claims (53 Ct. Clms. 222) dismissed the petition upon demurrer, and its judgment is

Affirmed.

Me. Justice Beandeis dissents.

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

Mr. Justice McReynolds

delivered the opinion of the court.

Appellant sued- the United States to recover the difference between amounts,-received through the Post Office Department and what it claims should have been paid for its services in carrying the mails during a series of-years, ending June .30, 1914. The demand is based upon implied contracts alleged to arise from the following circumstances. First. — Acceptance and transportation of the mails in reliance upon § 4002, Rev. Stats., as amended. This directs payment of specified sums per mile per annum according to weights; and the claim is"that because the Post Office Department improperly construed and applied it, appellant received much less than it should have. Second. — Acceptance and transportation of the mails under orders-and coercion of the Post Office Department, followed by failure to allow reasonable compensation therefor. Appellant claims its property was taken for public use and adequate compensation must be paid.

Concerning the challenged interpretation and application of § 4002, Rev. Stats., resulting in payments during each four-year term, upon the basis of weights taken *127 immediately prior to the beginning of the same instead of annually, it suffices to say that the action taken accords with prior practice followed for many years; the letter of the statute permits it; the carrier submitted with full knowledge; and, impliedly at least, it was sanctioned by this court in Delaware, Lackawanna & Western R. R. Co. v. United States, 249 U. S. 385.

We think it must be treated as settled doctrine that prior to the Act of July 28, 1916, c. 261, 39 Stat. 412, 429, — with the exception of certain roads aided by land grants — railroads -were not required by law to carry the mails. Eastern R. R. Co. v. United States, 129 U. S. 391, 394; Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. United States, 225 U. S. 640, 650; Delaware, Lackawanna & Western R. R. Co. v. United States, supra. And as appellant voluntarily accepted and performed the service with knowledge of what the United States intended to pay, it cannot now claim an implied contract for a greater sum. It may be that any railroad by failing to carry the mails would incur the hostility of those living along its lines and as a consequence suffer serious financial losses; but the fear of such results certainly does not amount to compulsion by the United States and cannot constitute the basis of a justiciable claim against them for taking property.

The Court of Claims (53 Ct. Clms. 222) dismissed the petition upon demurrer, and its judgment is

Affirmed.

Me. Justice Beandeis dissents.

New York, New Haven & Hartford Railroad v. United States, 251 U.S. 123, 40 S. Ct. 67, 64 L. Ed. 182, 1919 U.S. LEXIS 1858 (1919).

Pincite

251 U.S. 123 (New York, New Haven & Hartford Railroad v. United States) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related