Yazoo & Mississippi Valley Railroad v. United States

Court of Claims

Yazoo & Mississippi Valley Railroad v. United States

54 Ct. Cl. 165, 1919 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 105, 1919 WL 1064

CourtUnited States Court of Claims

DecidedMay 5, 1919

DocketNo. 33834

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 54 Ct. Cl. 165 (Yazoo & Mississippi Valley 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

Yazoo & Mississippi Valley Railroad v. United States, 54 Ct. Cl. 165, 1919 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 105, 1919 WL 1064 (cc 1919).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The court does not hold that a railroad company, by issuing or publishing a rate or filing a tariff, can nullify the land-grant laws. We have held, however, that where the Government contracts with reference to a particular service it is bound by its contract. Bush, Rec’r, v. United States, 52 C. Cls., 199. In the instant case the stipulated facts show that plaintiff had published the rates it would charge for the special and expedited service, which was subsequently ordered and rendered. The rates were not published to the public, and the particular service was not required by or applicable to the public. The Government thus had notice of the rates which plaintiff would charge, and it ordered and [169]*169secured the services without stipulating for any other rates or objecting to the proposed rates. Manifestly the Government could not, and did not, expect that the special services contracted for and secured would be rendered at regular tariff rates. The bill of lading specified that the minimum weight to the car would be 30,000 pounds. We think the effect of the whole transaction was that the parties contracted with reference to said proposed rates.

Judgment for plaintiff in the sum of $4,846.10.

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

Per Curiam.

The court does not hold that a railroad company, by issuing or publishing a rate or filing a tariff, can nullify the land-grant laws. We have held, however, that where the Government contracts with reference to a particular service it is bound by its contract. Bush, Rec’r, v. United States, 52 C. Cls., 199. In the instant case the stipulated facts show that plaintiff had published the rates it would charge for the special and expedited service, which was subsequently ordered and rendered. The rates were not published to the public, and the particular service was not required by or applicable to the public. The Government thus had notice of the rates which plaintiff would charge, and it ordered and [169]*169secured the services without stipulating for any other rates or objecting to the proposed rates. Manifestly the Government could not, and did not, expect that the special services contracted for and secured would be rendered at regular tariff rates. The bill of lading specified that the minimum weight to the car would be 30,000 pounds. We think the effect of the whole transaction was that the parties contracted with reference to said proposed rates.

Judgment for plaintiff in the sum of $4,846.10.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

54 Ct. Cl. 165, 1919 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 105, 1919 WL 1064, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/yazoo-mississippi-valley-railroad-v-united-states-cc-1919.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack