Case ID: us-ct-cl_17/html/0433-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Mr. Justice Matthews", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

(16 C. Cls. R., 569; 104 U. S. R., 662.)
    The Union Pacific Railroad Company, appellants, v. The United States, appellees.
    
      On the claimants’ Appeal.
    
    
      The Act of 1862 incorporating the claimant provides that the compamy shall carry the mails, <fc., “at fair and reasonable rates of compensation, not to exceed tlie amounts paid by private parties for tie same kind of service.” Subsequently postal cars are furnished by the claimant. Still later Congress passed an act limiting the rate of compensation to be paid for postal cars and mail transportation service generally. The claimant gives notice that this will not be accepted, and for service subsequent seeks to recover at the rates charged private parties f or express cars.
    
    Tie court below decides: (1) Tiat tie postal car service of tie Pacific Railroads, being voluntary, must be rendered subject to Rev. Stat., §5 3997, &c., and tiat 'an action to recover tierefor is governed by tie Chicago, Milwaukee and Saint Paul Railroad Case (C. CIs. R., 125, 14)' and tie Chicago and Northwestern Railroad Case.(15 id., 232, 245); (2) Tiat tie Pacific Railroad Act, 1862 (12 Stat. L., p. 487, § 6, ci. 120), neitier makes a contract for all prospective service rendered tie government nor binds tie government to pay tie same rates paid private parties for tie same service.
    Tie judgment of tie court below is reversed on the ground that Congress did not intend to alter tie relation between tie appellant and tie government established by tie Act of 1862, and tiat tie company is entitled to recover under its provisions for tie services rendered during tie period covered by tie present claim.
    On the question of compensation tie court adopts tie views of tie court below.
   Mr. Justice Matthews

delivered tbe opinion of the Supreme Court, March 6, 1882.