#### CHARLES E. SCHAFF, RECEIVER OF THE MISSOURI, KANSAS & TEXAS RAILWAY COMPANY v. THE UNITED STATES

[No. B-122.

Decided January 7, 1924]

*On the Proofs*

*Land-grant laws; hills for transportation with land-grant deductions; effect of protest.*— See *Southern Pacific Co., ante,*p. 36.

*The Reporters*statement of the case:

*Mr. Lctmrmce A. Gake*for the plaintiff. *Britton <& Granj*were on the briefs.

*Mr. Lisle A. Smith,*with whom was *Mr. Assistant Attorney General Robert JEL. Lovett,*for the defendant.

The following are the facts of the case as found by the court:

I. The plaintiff is the receiver of the Missouri, Kansas & Texas Railway Company, a corporation, and at the time of *103the transactions hereinafter mentioned was engaged in operating the Missouri, Kansas & Texas Railroad as a common carrier.

II. Before, the transactions hereinafter mentioned the railroad companies of the United States generally, including the plaintiff, severally agreed with the Quartermaster General of the United States Army that they would accept for the transportation of Government troops and property the amounts that would be payable by the Government calculated by way of the cheapest route between the same terminal points. These agreements, known as “ equalization ” agreements, are still generally in effect. The amounts due in settlement have been arrived at by taking the amounts due for the transportation at commercial rates by way of the shortest practicable route between the terminal points of the movement affording the largest proportions of land-grant mileage, and deducting from such amounts 50 per cent of such part of the amounts as would accrue to said land-aided portion.

III. From time to time during the years 1916 and 1917, the plaintiff transported upon request of the duly authorized agents and officers of the United States certain discharged soldiers, discharged military prisoners, paroled prisoners, rejected applicants for enlistment, furloughed soldiers, retired soldiers, discharged marines, rejected naval applicants and discharged naval prisoners, each of the said persons traveling individually and not as a part of a moving army, troop, or body of soldiers.

IV. The plaintiff’s bills for the said service were rendered to disbursing officers of the War Department or Navy Department and were paid on the basis of net land-grant fares., as rendered. Some of the bills, hereinafter mentioned, were accompanied by written protests against the application of land-grant fares.

V. Eliminating (1) all items involving transportation of classes of travelers other than those mentioned in Finding III, supra, (2) all items which are not verified by the report of the General Accounting Office in this case, (3) all items which are duplications, (4) all items on which supplemental bills were rendered and paid. (5) all items as to *104which no protest was made against the application of land-grant fares, and (6) all items involving transportation prior to June 20, 1916, there is a total difference, between land-grant fares and full tariff fares, of $2,107.63, on its bills Nos. 157, 169, 175, 186, 187, 188, 189, 198, 210, 213, 216, 226, 227, 230, 232, 239, 240, 242, 243, 246, 248, 250, 251, 252, 253, 267, 289, 296, 304, 306, 321, 902, 1003, 1004, 1128, 1287, 1581,1583, 903, 10Q5, 1130,1137,1187, 1290, 1437,1451,1582, and 1586, as shown in Exhibit A to the plaintiff’s petition.

VI. Of the bills mentioned in Finding V, *supra,*Nos. 157, 169, and 175 bore on their faces the following:

“As United States Government accounting officers claim they have no authority to allow or pay for the transportation of (soldier traveling at his own expense) more than the fare for troops of the United States, such fare is shown herein, but under protest, and the M., K. & T. Railway, for itself and connecting carriers, does not waive of its rights to full published tariff'fares, and any less amount will be accepted as part payment only for services performed.”

All of the other bills mentioned in Finding V, supra, were stamped, “Accepted under protest.”

memorandum bt the court

The plaintiff reduces his claim as stated in the petition by eliminating certain items, leaving a balance claimed of $2,107.63.

The case is controlled by the cases of *Southern Pacifie Co.*and *Western Pacific R. R.*Co., decided January 7, 1924, ante, pp. 36 and 67. See also *Statute of*Limitations, *Transportation*Act, section 424, 41 Stat. 492.

The petition is dismissed.