Pennsylvania Railroad v. United States

165 Ct. Cl. 1, 1964 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 215, 1964 WL 8557
CourtUnited States Court of Claims
DecidedMarch 13, 1964
DocketNo. 85-59
StatusPublished
Cited by4 cases

This text of 165 Ct. Cl. 1 (Pennsylvania 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
Pennsylvania Railroad v. United States, 165 Ct. Cl. 1, 1964 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 215, 1964 WL 8557 (cc 1964).

Opinion

Dubeee, Judge,

delivered the opinion of the court:

Plaintiff and its connecting carriers transported carload shipments of ammunition for cannon with explosive projectiles, ranging in size from 40 to 90 millimeters. The shipments moved from points of origin in Oregon, California, Arizona and New Mexico to points of destination on plaintiff’s lines in New Jersey and Ohio during 1948 through 1954.

After the services were performed, plaintiff billed and was paid freight charges computed under a through single factor class 65 rate from point of origin to destination, as provided [3]*3in an A.A.R. Section 22 Quotation No. 14-A for carload shipments of “Ammunition, fixed or semi-fixed, for cannon with explosive projectiles.” This same commodity description was also adopted in the Government bills of lading for the shipments. This quotation rate was a special rate, agreed upon after extended negotiations between the Government and the railroads, and was not on file with the Interstate Commerce Commission. It provided for a special rate of $6.08, which was 65 percent of the established through single factor first class rate of $9.35 from origin to .destination, for ammunition, fixed or semi-fixed, for cannon. This established regular tariff rate of $9.35 was under Transcontinental Freight Tariff No. 39-H.

After payment of plaintiff’s freight bills computed under Quotation 1A-A, the Government General Accounting Office determined that plaintiff had been overpaid, and the over-payments so determined by the Government wer¿ then deducted from other amounts due plaintiff. The basis for this determination by the Government was the application of a lower rate. This lower rate was derived by a combination of two rate factors. One factor was the application of a class 65 rate under Section 22 Quotation 14-A for “Ammunition, Fixed or Semi-Fixed, for .Cannon,” from :an intermediate point (Marion, Ohio) to the point of East Coast destination. The other combined factor was a tariff commodity rate filed with the Interstate Commerce Commission, Transcontinental Freight Tariff No. 3-S, including “Cartridges, Loaded, in Boxes” as applied to the shipments from points of West Coast origin to the same intermediate point (Marion, Ohio).

This combination of the commodity rate with the Quotation 14-A rate, as computed by the Government, produces the lowest rate. If this lowest combined rate is applicable to these shipments of ammunition, the Government was entitled to. substitute it for the higher single factor Quotation 14r-A rate, under the terms of Class Tariff No. 39-H. Item No. 90 of this Class Tariff upon which the 65 percent Quotation 14-A was computed, provided:

* * * if the aggregate of separately established (joint, local and/or proportional) rates-applicable on interstate [4]*4traffic contained in tariffs lawfully on file with the Interstate Commerce Commission applicable via any route over which the through rates published in this tariff apply, produces a lower charge on any shipment than the rate published herein, such aggregate of rates will apply via all routes * * * over which the rates shown in this tariff are applicable and the through rate published in this tariff has no application to that shipment. * * *

The above provision is generally referred to as “The Aggregate of Intermediates rule.”

Item No. 6 of Quotation 14-A provided as follows:

Item No. 6 Charges and Allowances, is amended to read:

In the absence of specific provisions to the contrary in this Quotation, shipments made hereunder are subject to all charges and all allowances for or in respect of diversion, reconsignment, demurrage, switching, and to all other privileges, charges and rules which in any way increase or decrease the amount to be paid on any shipment or which increase or decrease the value of the service as provided in applicable tariffs on file with the Interstate Commerce Commission, or by Section 22 Quotations, without, in any case, any land-grant deduction.

Recently, in Gulf, Mobile and Ohio Railroad Company v. United States, 160 Ct. Cl. 493, 312 F. 2d 921 (February 6, 1963), we reviewed two prior decisions in Great Northern Railway Company v. United States, 156 Ct. Cl. 332, 312 F. 2d 901 (March 7, 1962), and 160 Ct. Cl. 225, 312 F. 2d 906 (January 11, 1963), as standing for the proposition that “in order to combine a Section 22 Quotation with another quotation, or with a regular tariff provision, the intention of the parties to accomplish this purpose must be apparent, either by express provision or necessary inference.”

Was such an intention for combination of rates manifested here either implicitly or explicitly ? There is nothing in Quotation IN-A expressly authorizing the use of the quotation rate as a factor in a joint tariff rate produced by'application of the “aggregate of intermediates” rule. However, defendant points to Item No. 6 of Quotation 14-A as being an expression of intent to allow combination, and argues that shipments made under Item No. 6 are subject to “all other [5]*5privileges, charges and rules which in any way increase o.r decrease the amount to be paid on any shipment” as provided in tariffs on file with the Interstate Commerce Commission or by Section 22 Quotation. From this, defendant goes on to argue that since the class 65 rate must be obtained from Tariff No. 39-H which is on file with the Commission, the “aggregate of intermediates” rule of Item 90 of the tariff comes into play.

In making this argument, defendant overlooks other language in Item No. 6 of the Quotation that we consider equally important. Eead in full, Item No. 6 of Quotation No. 14r-A seems to express an intent contrary to that urged by defendant.

These shipments were transported as “Explosives” under the requirements of applicable tariffs on file with the Interstate Commerce Commission. They were described in the bills of lading as “Ammunition for Camion with Explosive Projectiles,” ranging in size from 40 to 90 millimeters. The bills of lading carried the following notation:

Explosive Placard Applied

This is to certify that the above articles are properly described by name and are packed and marked and are in proper condition for transportation according to regulations _ prescribed by the Interstate Commerce Commission.

In the tariffs and supplements which were applicable at the times the several shipments here involved were transported, explosives were defined according to classes, and regulations were prescribed for handling and placing placards on cars dependent upon the classes defined.

Acceptable explosives were divided into three classes designated as follows:

Class A — Dangerous explosives; detonating or otherwise of maximum hazard.
Class B — Less dangerous explosives; inflammable hazard.
Class C — Relatively safe explosives; minimum hazard.

In all of these tariffs, Class A explosives included ammunition for cannon, and ammunition for cannon with explosive projectiles. Class C included ammunition for small arms. [6]*6The shipments of “Ammunition for Cannon, with Explosive Projectiles” here at issue were included under Class A as “Dangerous explosives; detonating or otherwise of maximum hazard.”

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

Related

John R. Sand & Gravel Co. v. United States
59 Fed. Cl. 645 (Federal Claims, 2004)
Oak Forest, Inc. v. United States
26 Cl. Ct. 1397 (Court of Claims, 1992)
Union Pacific Railroad Company v. The United States
434 F.2d 1341 (Court of Claims, 1970)
Great Northern Railway Co. v. United States
178 Ct. Cl. 226 (Court of Claims, 1967)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
165 Ct. Cl. 1, 1964 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 215, 1964 WL 8557, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pennsylvania-railroad-v-united-states-cc-1964.