Southern Pacific Co. v. United States

Court of Claims

Southern Pacific Co. v. United States

62 Ct. Cl. 57, 1926 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 502, 1926 WL 2673

CourtUnited States Court of Claims

DecidedApril 5, 1926

DocketNo. D-354

StatusPublished

This text of 62 Ct. Cl. 57 (Southern Pacific 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

Southern Pacific Co. v. United States, 62 Ct. Cl. 57, 1926 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 502, 1926 WL 2673 (cc 1926).

Pincite

Opinion

Campbell, Chief Justice,

delivered the opinion of the court :

The greater part of the claim involved in this suit is for the transportation of members of the National Guard, the question being whether or not they were troops of the United States. This question has been decided in favor of the plaintiff’s contention. See Oregon-Washington Railroad and Navigation Company case, 60 C. Cls. 458. A smaller item claimed arises because of a deduction of 3 per cent from the plaintiff’s bills made by the disbursing officer or auditor, acting upon the Joint Military Arrangement No. 1 effective on and after January 1, 1921, by which the plaintiff and its connections agreed to accept a deduction of 3 per cent on [61]*61transportation exclusively of commissioned officers and others of the United States Army, Navy, and Marine Corps. This provision does not extend to the National Guard, and therefore the deduction of 8 per cent was erroneous. Plaintiff is entitled to recover on account of this item. And it is so ordered.

GRai-iam, Judge; Hat, Judge; Downet, Judge; and Booth, Judge, concur.

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

Campbell, Chief Justice,

delivered the opinion of the court :

The greater part of the claim involved in this suit is for the transportation of members of the National Guard, the question being whether or not they were troops of the United States. This question has been decided in favor of the plaintiff’s contention. See Oregon-Washington Railroad and Navigation Company case, 60 C. Cls. 458. A smaller item claimed arises because of a deduction of 3 per cent from the plaintiff’s bills made by the disbursing officer or auditor, acting upon the Joint Military Arrangement No. 1 effective on and after January 1, 1921, by which the plaintiff and its connections agreed to accept a deduction of 3 per cent on [61]*61transportation exclusively of commissioned officers and others of the United States Army, Navy, and Marine Corps. This provision does not extend to the National Guard, and therefore the deduction of 8 per cent was erroneous. Plaintiff is entitled to recover on account of this item. And it is so ordered.

GRai-iam, Judge; Hat, Judge; Downet, Judge; and Booth, Judge, concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

62 Ct. Cl. 57, 1926 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 502, 1926 WL 2673, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/southern-pacific-co-v-united-states-cc-1926.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack