Panhandle & Santa Fe Railway Co. v. United States

Court of Claims

Panhandle & Santa Fe Railway Co. v. United States

60 Ct. Cl. 999, 1925 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 399, 1925 WL 2718

CourtUnited States Court of Claims

DecidedJune 15, 1925

DocketNo. B-442

StatusPublished

This text of 60 Ct. Cl. 999 (Panhandle & Santa Fe Railway Co. 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

Panhandle & Santa Fe Railway Co. v. United States, 60 Ct. Cl. 999, 1925 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 399, 1925 WL 2718 (cc 1925).

Pincite

Opinion

[1001]*1001MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT

The court has held that the “ net cash ” rate can not be used to defeat land-grant deductions. The present case does not involve any land-grant deduction. When the bills were presented the disbursing officer declined to pay them, and following a ruling of the comptroller informed the plaintiff that they would have to be stated as upon the basis of an “ emigrant movable rate.” The bills were restated, but payment of them as restated was under protest. The acceptance of payment in the circumstances does not defeat the plaintiff’s right to proper compensation.1 (See Southern Pacific Railroad Company case, No. 33946, decided by the Supreme Court May 11, 1925, 268 U. S. 263.) The rate applied by the accounting officer in making the deduction was not a proper one. Bush, Receiver, etc., 56 C. Cls. 490; Maine Central Railroad Company, 56 C. Cls. 490; Illinois Centred Railroad Company, 58 C. Cls. 182.

In the circumstances of this case the tariff rate should be applied. Judgment is rendered for the plaintiff accordingly.

Graham, Judge, took no part in the decision of this case.

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

[1001]*1001MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT

The court has held that the “ net cash ” rate can not be used to defeat land-grant deductions. The present case does not involve any land-grant deduction. When the bills were presented the disbursing officer declined to pay them, and following a ruling of the comptroller informed the plaintiff that they would have to be stated as upon the basis of an “ emigrant movable rate.” The bills were restated, but payment of them as restated was under protest. The acceptance of payment in the circumstances does not defeat the plaintiff’s right to proper compensation.1 (See Southern Pacific Railroad Company case, No. 33946, decided by the Supreme Court May 11, 1925, 268 U. S. 263.) The rate applied by the accounting officer in making the deduction was not a proper one. Bush, Receiver, etc., 56 C. Cls. 490; Maine Central Railroad Company, 56 C. Cls. 490; Illinois Centred Railroad Company, 58 C. Cls. 182.

In the circumstances of this case the tariff rate should be applied. Judgment is rendered for the plaintiff accordingly.

Graham, Judge, took no part in the decision of this case.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

60 Ct. Cl. 999, 1925 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 399, 1925 WL 2718, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/panhandle-santa-fe-railway-co-v-united-states-cc-1925.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack