#### GALVESTON, HARRISBURG & SAN ANTONIO RAILWAY COMPANY v. THE UNITED STATES

[No. 34460.

Decided January 7, 1924]

*On the Proofs*

*Land-grant deductions; bills made out on forms prescribed by comptroller; payment in full.*— Wliere bills are made out and presented to the disbursing officer for payment on land-grant forms prescribed by the comptroller, and the amount claimed therein is paid in full, there can be no recovery for any additional amount. See *B. <£ O. R. R. Co.,*52 C. Cls. 468; *Oregon-WasJi. R. R. <& Rav. Co.,*54 C. Cls. 131; 255 U. S'. 339.

*Sam,e; protest.*— A statement on the face of such bills to the effect that they were made out with land-grant deductions to secure payment by the disbursing officer, and that the company does not waive any right to recover full tariff rates by receiving the amount claimed in said bills, gives no additional right to recover back the land-grant deductions made in said bills. See *Southern Pacific Co., ante,*p. 36, and *Western Pacific Co., ante,*p. 67.

*90*The Reporter's*statement of the case:

*Mr. William R. Harr*for the plaintiff. *Harr & Bates*were on the brief.

*Mr. Perry W.*Howard, with whom was *Mr. Assistant Attorney General Robert II.*Lovett, for the defendant.

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

I. Plaintiff is a corporation duly created, organized, and existing under the laws of the State of Texas, and as such corporation now is, and was, during all of the times when the services hereinafter' mentioned were performed, engaged as a common carrier by railroad in the transportation of passengers and property in and through various States of the United States and between points referred to herein, either directly over its own lines or in participation with other carriers.

II. Under the acts of Congress granting lands in aid of railroads and acts of Congress regulating the expenditure of appropriations by the United States for Army transportation over such land-grant railroads, said land-grant railroads were required to transport troops of the United States for certain less amounts than those charged private parties for similar transportation.

Some years ago, and prior to the times when the services hereinafter mentioned were performed, the railroad companies of the United States generally, including plaintiff, severally agreed with the Quartermaster General of the United States Army (subject to certain exceptions not necessary here to be stated) to accept, for the transportation of troops of the United States, the lowest net fare and lowest net excess-baggage rate lawfully available as derived through deductions on account of land-grant distance via a usually traveled route for military traffic from a lawful fare filed with the Interstate Commerce Commission as applying from point of origin to destination at time of movement. These agreements, commonly known as “ land-grant equalization agreements,” were in force at the times of the transactions hereinafter referred to.

*91III. Between February 25,1914, and June 18, 1916, plaintiff, upon transportation requests issued by the War and Navy Departments of the United States transported certain persons belonging to the following classes, to wit: Applicants for enlistment accepted and rejected, discharged military prisoners en route to their homes after expiration of their sentences, discharged soldiers, retired soldiers, and furloughed soldiers.

IV. Exhibit A filed with the petition covers claim of the plaintiff herein on account of such transportation for the period fi;om February 25, 1914, to December 31, 1914, and Exhibit B filed with the petition covers the period between January 1, 1915 and June 18, 1916.

For the first-claimed period the amount claimed as shown by said Exhibit A is $11,802.41, from which should be deducted $2 on account of errors in • calculation and $230.12 on account of the- transportation of persons not coming within the classes named, leaving $11,570.29 claimed for the period covered by said exhibit.

The total amount of claim as shown by said Exhibit B covering period from January 1, 1915, to June 18, 1916, is $11,027.47, of which $539.90 is applicable to the transportation of persons not within the enumerated classes, leaving-net amount claimed for said period as to the transportation of these classes $10,487.57.

V. The amount claimed as to each item of transportation referred to was stated by the plaintiff in bills submitted to a disbursing officer of the Army for payment on basis of land-grant deduction in each instance, which bills were rendered on the form of voucher prescribed by the Government for transportation subject to land-grant deduction and which form required the stating of the account in columns under the headings, “ Total mileage,” “ Mileage of land-grant road,” “ Number of men,” “ Bate per man,” “ Gross amount,” “Amount to be deducted on account of land grant,” and “Amount claimed,” followed by a certification that the claim was correct and just. All the bills were paid in the full amount stated in the final column as the “Amount claimed,” which was the land-grant rate arrived at by deducting the *92“Amount to be deducted on account of land grant ” from the “ Gross amount.”

VI. For the period from February 25, 1914, to February 28, 1915, inclusive, plaintiff’s bills for transportation of the several classes of persons enumerated were written 'as stated in the preceding finding, and with one exception were submitted to disbursing officers for payment bearing no protests thereon and were paid at full amount claimed therein and payment accepted without protest. For said period the difference between the amount which the plaintiff claimed and received for said transportation at land-grant rates and the amount it would have been entitled to receive if entitled to be paid therefor at full commercial rates was $11,570.29.

Previous to the period last above stated the Comptroller of the Treasury had held that railroad companies could be paid for the transportation of persons coming within the enumerated classes at land-grant rates only, and disbursing officers were authorized to pay only on that basis, and some of plaintiff’s agents having to do with the presentment of bills for such transportation believed that it would be useless to present bills therefor at other than land-grant rates. It is not shown with reference to the transportation during the period referred to that any demand was ever made for payment at other than land-grant rates or any attempt made to secure payment, upon any other basis.

VII. For such transportation furnished between March 1, 1915 and June 18, 1916, inclusive, plaintiff’s bills were rendered, with two exceptions, to disbursing officers at land-grant rates upon the prescribed form as hereinbefore found, and were paid at the amount claimed, but upon bills for the larger part of the transportation furnished within the last-named period there was endorsed or attached thereto the protest, in form as follows:

“As United States Government accounting officers claim they had no authority to allow or pay for the transportation of discharged soldiers more than the fares for troops of the United States, such fares are shown herein, but under protest, and the Galveston, Harrisburg & San Antonio Railway Company, for itself and connecting carriers, does not waive any of its rights to full published tariff fares, and any pay*93ment at any less amount will be accepted as part payment onfy for the services performed.”

For tlie said period between March 1, 1915 and June 18, 1916, inclusive, the amount of deductions on account of land grant shown on plaintiff’s bills for the transportation of persons within the enumerated classes was $10,487.57, of which amount $8,195.27 was the amount of deductions shown on bills bearing protest in the form above stated, and $2,292.30 was shown upon bills bearing no protest. Of said sum of $8,195.27, representing deductions for said period on account of persons belonging to said classes and shown upon bills bearing protest as stated, $-was oh account of the transportation of discharged soldiers.

MEMORANDUM BT THE COURT

As to the portion of plaintiff’s claim referred to in Finding VI, reference is made to *Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Co.*v. *United States,*52 C. Cls. 468, and *Oregon-Washington R. R. & Nav. Co.*v. *United States,*54 C. Cls. 131, 255 U. S. 339.

As to the remainder of plaintiff’s claim, reference is also made to *Southern Pacific Co.*v. *United States, ante,*p. 36, and *Western Pacific R. R. Co.*v. *United States,*ante, p. 67, both decided this day.

The petition is dismissed.