Case ID: us-ct-cl_61/html/1022-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Mr. Justice Butler", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

LOUISVILLE & NASHVILLE RAILROAD v. THE UNITED STATES
    [57 C. Cls. 268; 267 U. S. 395]
    Judgment was rendered in favor of the United States in the court below. On appeal the judgment was affirmed, the Supreme Court deciding;
    1. Contracts for sale and- delivery of coal to the United States, construed, with the advertisements, specifications, and conduct of' on cars at the mine; so that title passed then and the railroad transportation, on Government bills of lading, was subject to land-grant rates.
    March 2, 1925.
    2. Provisions in such contracts for service by the vendor in transferring the coal to barges at railroad destination, compensation therefor to he included in price of coal; and reserving right of United States to test coal after transportation and reject it if not up to specifications; held, not inconsistent with passing of title at time of delivery on cars at the mine.
    3. Where the United States contracted for coal to be shipped by rail and delivered at a vessel, use of Government bills of lading and payment of freight by the United States at land-grant rates, were not enough to sustain a finding that the coal was the property of the United States when hauled by the railroad.
    4. When a railroad company, entitled to charge the United States the full tariff rate, charges and receives the reduced land-grant rate with full knowledge of the facts, it is bound by its acquiescence and can not recover the difference.
    the right of a railroad to charge extra for switching and transferring coal at destination depends upon road-haul revenue being equal to as much as a stated rate per ton, land-grant deductions from the latter allowed the United States are not to be considered in determining its liability to such extra charges.
   Mr. Justice Butler

delivered the opinion of the Supreme Court