United States v. Central Pacific Railroad

99 U.S. 449, 25 L. Ed. 287, 1878 U.S. LEXIS 1559
CourtSupreme Court of the United States
DecidedJanuary 27, 1879
Docket703
StatusPublished
Cited by20 cases

This text of 99 U.S. 449 (United States v. Central Pacific Railroad) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of the United States primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
United States v. Central Pacific Railroad, 99 U.S. 449, 25 L. Ed. 287, 1878 U.S. LEXIS 1559 (1879).

Opinion

Mr. Justice Bradley

delivered the opinion of the court.

This was an action by the United States against the Central Pacific Railroad Company, to recover five per cent of the *450 net earnings of the railroad belonging to said company, from the sixteenth day of July, 1869, the date at which it is alleged that the said railroad was completed, to the thirty-first day of October, 1874. The road extends from the termination of the Union Pacific Railroad, at or near Ogden in the Territory of Utah, to the waters of the Pacific; and was constructed under the provisions of the Pacific Railroad Act of July 1, 1862, and the several acts supplementary thereto. It was originally constructed by two corporations of California, namely, the Central Pacific Railroad Company of California, and the Western Pacific Railroad Company; which companies, however, accepted the terms of the said acts of Congress, received subsidies from the government'under the same, and were finally consolidated into one - corporation under and by virtue of the said acts, by the name of the Central Pacific Railroad Company, which succeeded to all the rights and duties under said acts of Congress which belonged or appertained to the original companies.

On the trial, a jury was waived, and the court found the facts-specially ; and upon such findings gave judgment for the defendant. The United States brought a writ of error, and the case is now here for review.

The case, in all material respects, involves the same questions which have just been disposed of in the case of Union Pacific Railroad Company v. United States, supra, p. 402. The same subsidies were granted to the companies in this case, and upon the same terms and conditions, as in that of the Union Pacific Railroad Company; the same acts of Congress, in the main, applying to both. The claim of the government is founded upon that clause in the sixth section of the act of July 1, 1862, which declares that “after said road is completed, until said bonds and interest are paid, at least five per centum of the net earnings of said road shall also be annually applied to the payment thereof.” The allegation of the government is, that the railroad was completed on the sixteenth day of July, 1869; and that the net earnings of the road from that time to the thirty-first day of October, 1874, amounted to the sum of $86,782,702. The defendant denies the allegations of the bill; and the principal issue at the trial was, the time *451 of the completion of the road. The conclusion of the court from its findings of fact was, that the road was not completed until the first day of October, 1874, and, hence, that the government was not entitled to recover.

It is unnecessary to review all the findings. The course of proceedings was in all respects similar to what took place in the case of the Union Pacific Railroad Company: similar reports of completed sections by the company under the oath of its president, similar examination and reports, of commissioners, and similar acceptances by the President of the United States. The seventh finding of the court is as follows : —

“ VII. That as each section of twenty miles or more of the road was constructed, the president of the company filed a statement, under oath, in pursuance of the statute, to the effect that the section, describing it, had been completed as required, specifying the particulars in the language of the statute, and asking that the commissioners appointed under the statute might be notified, and that they might examine and report upon such section. Upon a favorable report by the commissioners, the President accepted the section provisionally, and issued to' the company the bonds authorized by the statute. This was the course of proceeding till 1868, when it was' found that the government might advance all the subsidies upon a road only provisionally accepted in sections, and have no security for its absolute completion, as a whole, up to the standard of a first-class road. The question of the propriety of this course was submitted to the Attorney-General, who rendered an opinion on Sept. 5, 1868, which was to the effect that the course before pursued by the government was in accordance with the law, and that the President had authority to appoint commissioners to review that portion of the road which had been accepted provisionally, and to refuse a final acceptance of the road as a whole until all the deficiencies should be supplied, and that sufficient subsidies might be withheld, or other guaranties required of the company to secure absolute completion. The opinion is reported in 12 Op. Att’y-Gen., at page 477, and is referred to and made a part of this finding. The President thenceforth acted upon this *452 opinion of the Attorney-General, and accepted each section when provisionally completed, leaving the question of the absolute completion of the road, as a whole, to be determined upon examination and report of commissioners to be specially appointed for that purpose.”

This opinion had respect both to the Union Pacific and the Central Pacific roads.

The court then finds that on the 25th of September, 1868, the President, in pursuance of the opinion of the Attorney-General, appointed a commission of civil engineers to examine the entire road, so far as then provisionally completed, and report upon it in accordance with instructions to be furnished by the Secretary of the Interior; that these commissioners made their report on the 14th of May, 1869, pointing out many particulars in which the road as constructed failed to come up to the standard of a first-class road, and estimating that to supply such deficiencies would require a further expenditure of $4,493,880; that the Secretary suspended the grant of lands to the company until further orders, and required it to deposit with the Secretary of the Treasury $4,000,000 of its first-mortgage bonds, to secure the proper completion of the road, under a similar agreement to that made by the Union Pacific Railroad Company ,- that on the lltli of May, 1869, the connecting rail uniting the Central and Union- Pacific railroads was laid, and soon thereafter regular through passenger and freight trains were placed upon the roads between San Francisco and Omaha, and have run regularly between said points ever since; and that on the sixteenth day of July, 1869, and ever since, said roads have been in fact operated as railroads, and have been able to carry, and have in fact carried, all passengers, freights, mails, troops, supplies, and munitions of war offered for transportation between the eastern terminus of the Central Pacific Railroad and the Pacific Ocean. The fourteenth finding is as follows: —

“ XIY. That on July 15, 1869, the Secretary of the Interior transmitted to the President the report, dated May 15, 1869, of the commissioners appointed to examine and report upon a section of twenty and three-tenths miles of the Central Pacific Railroad, this being the last section constructed by said defend *453 ant.

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

Related

Rivera v. Board of Review
606 A.2d 1087 (Supreme Court of New Jersey, 1992)
Costa v. Sunn
697 P.2d 43 (Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals, 1985)
In Interest of Jones
429 A.2d 671 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1981)
Augello v. WAR., MET. CORR. CTR., US BUR. OF PR.
470 F. Supp. 1230 (E.D. New York, 1979)
CAROLINAS BRANCH, ASSOCIATED, ETC. v. Kreps
442 F. Supp. 392 (D. South Carolina, 1977)
Crown Zellerbach Corp. v. Marshall
441 F. Supp. 1110 (E.D. Louisiana, 1977)
United States Steel Corp. v. Pollution Control Board
367 N.E.2d 327 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1977)
J. L. v. Parham
412 F. Supp. 112 (M.D. Georgia, 1976)
Plato v. Roudebush
397 F. Supp. 1295 (D. Maryland, 1975)
Nolan v. Judicial Council
481 F.2d 41 (Third Circuit, 1973)
Munro v. Elk Rapids Schools
189 N.W.2d 224 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1971)
Citta v. Delaware Valley Hospital
313 F. Supp. 301 (E.D. Pennsylvania, 1970)
United States v. Northern Pac. Ry. Co.
30 F.2d 655 (Eighth Circuit, 1929)
United States v. Stanford
70 F. 346 (Ninth Circuit, 1895)
United States v. Central Pac. R.
25 F. Cas. 354 (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of California, 1877)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
99 U.S. 449, 25 L. Ed. 287, 1878 U.S. LEXIS 1559, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-central-pacific-railroad-scotus-1879.