Union Pacific Railroad v. United States

99 U.S. 402, 25 L. Ed. 274, 1878 U.S. LEXIS 1556
Supreme Court of the United States·Decided January 27, 1879·No. 736·Published·Cited by 56 cases

Opinions

Mr. Justice Bradley,

after stating the case, delivered the opinion of the court.

This case is in some respects supplemental to that of United [407]*407States v. Union Pacific Railroad Co., 91 U. S. 72. That was a suit brought in the Court"of Claims, by the company, to recover one-half of the compensation due to it for services rendered to the government between the dates of February, 1871, and February, 1874, against which claim the United States set up a counter-claim for the interest which it had paid on the subsidy bonds advanced to the company. This court held that, by the terms of the acts of Congress granting said subsidies, the company was not required to pay the interest on said bonds until the maturity of the principal thereof; and therefore the counter-claiin of the government was overruled. The present case arises upon a like suit brought by the company in the Court of Claims for the recovery of one-half of the compensation due to it for services rendered to the government during the remainder of the year 1874 and the whole of the year 1875, including certain services performed prior to 1874, not included in the first suit.

The general history of the legislation of Congress in reference to the Union Pacific Railroad Company and the associated enterprises, and of the policy of the government respecting the same, is fully stated in our opinion in the former case, and need not be repeated here. We shall only advert to the several acts, and to the proceedings and negotiations which have taken place between the parties, so far as may be necessary to an understanding of the specific questions which are raised in this suit. The facts are fully set forth by the Court of Claims in its findings. Three principal questions áre raised by the acts of Congress and the facts found by the court, which it is necessary for us to determine.

First, When was the road completed?

Secondly, What is included in net earnings ?

Thirdly, How and under what conditions are they to be paid ?

I. First, as to the completion of the road.

In one sense, a railroad is never completed. There is never, or hardly ever, a time when something more cannot be done, and is not done, to render the most perfect road more complete than it was before. This fact is well exemplified by the history of the early railroads of the country. At first, many of them were constructed with a flat rail, or iron bar, laid on wooden [408]*408string-pieces, resulting in what was known, in former times, as snake-heads — the bars becoming loose, and curving up in such a manner as to be caught, by the cars, and forced through the floors amongst the passengers. Then came the T rail; and finally the H rail, which itself passed through many successive improvements. Finally, steel rails in the place of iron rails have been adopted as the most perfect, durable, safe, and economical rails on extensive lines of road. Bridges were first made of wood, then of stone, then of stone and iron. Grades originally crossed, and, in most cases, do still cross, highways and other roads on the samé level. The most improved plan is to have them, by means of bridges, pass over, or under, intersecting roads. A single track is all that is deemed necessary to begin with; but now; no railroad of any pretensions is considéred perfect until it has at least a double track. Depots and station-houses are at first mere sheds, which are deemed sufficient to answer the purpose oí business. These are succeeded, as the means of the company admit, by commodious station and freight houses,- of permanent and ornamental structure. And so the process of improvement goes on; so that it is often a nice question to determine what is meant by a complete, first-class railroad; and if a question of right or obligation between parties depends upon the completion of such a structure, courts are obliged to spell out, from the circumstances of the case, and the language and acts cf the parties, what they mean when they . use such terms.

In the present case, we have for our guidance several clauses in the charter of the Union Pacific Railroad Company (the act of 1862), in which the terms referred to are used, as well as the acts of the parties in reference thereto. One of these clauses is in the fourth section of the act, which contains an engagement on the part of the government to grant certain sections of land to the company bn the completion of a certain number of miles of its road. The third section having granted to the company every alternate section of the public land, designated by odd numbers, to the amount of five alternate sections per mile on each side of the railroad, on the line thereof, and within the limits of ten miles, not otherwise disposed of by the United States, the fourth section proceeds as follows: —

[409]*409“ Sect. 4. That whenever said company shall have,completed forty consecutive miles of any portion of said railroad and telegraph line, ready for the service contemplated by this act, and supplied with all necessary drains, culverts, viaducts, crossings, sidings, bridges, turnouts, watering-places, depots, equipments, furniture, and all other appurtenances of a first-class railroad, the rails and all the other iron used in the construction and equipment of said road to be American manufacture of the best quality, the President of the United States shall appoint three commissioners to examine the same and report to him in relation thereto; and if it,shall appear to him that forty consecutive miles of said railroad and telegraph line have been completed and equipped in all respects as required by this act, then, upon certificate of said commissioners to that effect, patents shall issue conveying the right and title to said lands to said company, on each side of the road as far as the same is completed, to the amount aforesaid; and patents .shall in like manner, issue as each forty miles of said railroad and telegraph line are completed, upon certificate of said commissioners. . . . -Provided, however, that no such commissioners shall be appointed by the President of the United States unless there shall be presented to him a statement, verified on oath by the president of said company, that such forty miles have been completed in the manner required by this act, and sotting forth with certainty the points where such forty miles' begin and where the same end, which oath shall be taken before a judge of a court of record.”

By the act of 1864 (13 Stat. 356), the amount and extent of the grant is doubled.

Again, by the fifth section of the act of 1862 it is enacted as follows: —

Sect. 5. That, for the purposes herein mentioned, the Secretary of the Treasury shall, upon the certificate in writing of said commissioners of the completion and equipment of forty consecutive miles of said railroad and telegraph, in accordance with the provisions of this act,-issue to said company bonds of the United States of 81,000 each, payable in thirty ye.ars after date, bearing six per centum per annum interest, ... to the amount of sixteen of said bonds per mile for each section of forty miles, and to secure the repayment to the United States, as hereinafter provided, of the amount of said bonds so issued and delivered to said company, together with all interest thereon wjliich shall have been paid by the United States, [410]

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

Union Pacific Railroad v. United States, 99 U.S. 402, 25 L. Ed. 274, 1878 U.S. LEXIS 1556 (1879).

99 U.S. 402 (Union Pacific Railroad v. United States) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Opinion No. (2010)
California Attorney General Reports, 2010
In re Boston & Maine Corp.
634 F.2d 1359 (First Circuit, 1980)
Lanz v. United States
285 F. Supp. 796 (N.D. New York, 1968)
Munroe Land Co. v. Commissioner
1966 T.C. Memo. 2 (U.S. Tax Court, 1966)
RKO Theatres, Inc. v. United States
163 F. Supp. 598 (Court of Claims, 1958)
Markovits v. Commissioner
11 T.C.M. 823 (U.S. Tax Court, 1952)
Associated Electric Co. v. United States
97 F. Supp. 821 (Court of Claims, 1951)
Delaware Steeplechase & Race Ass'n v. Commissioner
9 T.C.M. 893 (U.S. Tax Court, 1950)
Grand Traverse Hotel Co. v. United States
79 F. Supp. 860 (W.D. Michigan, 1948)
United States v. Riely
169 F.2d 542 (Fourth Circuit, 1948)
Difco Laboratories, Inc. v. Commissioner
10 T.C. 660 (U.S. Tax Court, 1948)
In re Wisconsin Cent. Ry. Co.
68 F. Supp. 320 (D. Minnesota, 1946)
Apollo Steel Co. v. Commissioner
4 T.C.M. 387 (U.S. Tax Court, 1945)
Senior Inv. Corp. v. Commissioner
2 T.C. 124 (U.S. Tax Court, 1943)
Town of Romney v. Romney Imrovement Co.
11 S.E.2d 758 (West Virginia Supreme Court, 1940)
Hawaii Consol. Ry., Ltd. v. Borthwick
105 F.2d 286 (Ninth Circuit, 1939)
Hawaii Consolidated Railway, Ltd. v. Borthwick
34 Haw. 269 (Hawaii Supreme Court, 1937)
Peninsula Transit Corp. v. Commonwealth
183 S.E. 446 (Supreme Court of Virginia, 1936)
Foshay v. United States
68 F.2d 205 (Eighth Circuit, 1933)