Yazoo & Mississippi Valley Railroad v. United States

54 Ct. Cl. 165, 1919 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 105, 1919 WL 1064
United States Court of Claims·Decided May 5, 1919·No. No. 33834·Published·Cited by 4 cases

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] secured 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

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

54 Ct. Cl. 165 (Yazoo & Mississippi Valley Railroad v. United States) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Louisville & Nashville Railroad v. United States
58 Ct. Cl. 622 (Court of Claims, 1923)
Missouri Pacific Railroad v. United States
56 Ct. Cl. 341 (Court of Claims, 1921)
Los Angeles & Salt Lake Railroad v. United States
55 Ct. Cl. 305 (Court of Claims, 1920)