Court Opinion

ID: 9444537
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-03 21:04:33.982828+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:29:54.765185
License: Public Domain

DANAHER, Circuit Judge
(concurring in the result).
I do not agree that the statute ipso facto entitled the Government to the reduced rate “regardless of how transportation is arranged.” My colleagues decide the question without reference to the shipping documents while I believe that without them the freight forwarder might have been entitled to recover. There is no question — indeed it is here conceded — that had the goods been tendered directly to the railroad, land grant rates would apply. “All of the reported cases of which we are advised involve a dispute between the government and a carrier as to the application of such rates.”1
The reason is clear enough. “The carrier’s obligation to haul property of the United States at reduced rates was a part of the consideration for which the land grant was made. Part of appellant’s compensation for hauling the coal was paid in land, and the balance was paid in money.” 2 This forwarder received no such emolument by land grant — it did not receive half its pay in land, half in money. On the contrary, as a freight forwarder it picked up the government’s small shipments in its own trucks, took them to its loading point, assembled them with other non-government shipments into full carloads, gave them expedited shipping service across the country, became liable for losses and damage in transit, delivered them to itself at its freight terminals in any one of ninety cities throughout the nation, unloaded the cars and then delivered each individual shipment by its own truck at the point of destination. Without more, it would seem utterly unconscionable to say that this superior expedited service was to be performed at land grant rates. Indeed, the government itself as experience developed the need during the war, specifically contracted to pay full rates for such and extra services when a shipment was stamped to show an administrative determination that freight forwarder service was required. Even then the government received from the forwarder all necessary data to permit the government to seek *86land grant deductions from the railroads. The exhibits of record make this situation crystal clear. Moreover it is not unreasonable to deduce that the special agreements referred to, effective September 14, 1942, February 24, 1943 and June 24,1943, respectively, were intended to clarify and resolve a state of confusion borne of the volume of shipments and the peculiar and extraordinary character of the freight forwarder’s status.
What then, of situations such as the present, stipulated to be representative of hundreds, not within the special agreements mentioned or antedating them, or completed prior to the adoption of the Freight Forwarder Act in 1942? 3 We must resort to the shipping documents for our answer.
The shipment moved on government bill of lading throughout, so far as relations between the Government and appellant are concerned, even though as to the railroads the latter was a shipper and not a carrier. Chicago, M., St. P. & P. R. Co. v. Acme Fast Freight, 1949, 336 U.S. 465, 69 S.Ct. 692, 93 L.Ed. 817. “But the mere use of government forms of bills of lading is not conclusive on the question of ownership of property at the time of transportation, and does not give the United States the right of transportation at land grant rates.” 4 Certainly the manufacturer could not have received land-grant rates had it shipped the valves on government bill of lading.5 And not every purchase which furthers national defense is for “military or naval” use within the meaning of the applicable statute.6
Here the government bill of lading specifically identified the valves as public-property and directed the forwarder to bill the “U. S. Maritime Commission Emergency Ship Construction Fund, Division of Purchase and Supply.” Here the shipment was clearly consigned to the “U. S. Maritime Commission, Richmond Shipbuilding Corp. via National C/L.” Here the receipt for delivery at Richmond, California, by “National Car-loading Corp.” demonstrated that the entire transportation was accomplished by the forwarder. Here the public transportation voucher form addressed to “The United States, Dr.” by “National Carloading Corporation” bore the latter’s certificate “that the above account is correct and just, that the services have-been rendered as stated * * * and. that the rates charged are not in excess-of the lowest net rates available for the-Government, based on tariffs effective at. the date of service.”
Appellant as “an experienced carrier could not have been unfamiliar with the-express terms of a document which it iises regularly, a prescribed document upon which every claim against one of its-largest customers must be made.” 7
Nor could the appellant have failed to know that since 1921 the Comptroller-General had ruled that freight forwarders are subject to land grant rates. See-27 Comp.Dec. 1043. Moreover by a ruling; of March 16, 1938, the Comptroller General had specifically advised appellant of the Government’s claim of right to> land grant deductions. It therefore was: not open to appellant to certify that “lowest net rates” meant the rates it had prescribed for expedited service without deduction. There was no express agreement that the shipments in suit were based upon appellant’s forwarder’s tariff, nor a showing that government officials knew of, or expected the government would pay, the forwarder’s rate. Thus, *87there can be no recovery on the theory of implied contract.8
In short, as I see it, the shipping documents made clear to the appellant the character of the shipment within the applicable statute, that title was in the Government, that the Government became entitled to land-grant rates, that the proper charges should reflect the appropriate deductions and that appellant was not entitled to payment in amounts greater than could be certified to be the lowest net rate for the Government. The voucher meant that much, at least. On post-audit accordingly, the Government was justified in withholding amounts equal to earlier overpayments, and the judgment of the District Court was correct.

. Henry H. Cross Co. v. United States, 7 Cir., 1943, 133 F.2d 183, 186.

. Louisville & Nashville R. Co. v. United States, 1925, 267 U.S. 395, 402, 45 S.Ct. 233, 236, 69 L.Ed. 678.

. 49 U.S.C.A. § 1001 et seq.

. Louisville & Nashville R. Co. v. United States, 1925, 267 U.S. 395, 398, 45 S.Ct. 233, 235, 69 L.Ed. 678; Pacific Ry. Co. v. United States, D.C.Cal.1947, 71 F.Supp. 987, 989, affirmed 9 Cir., 1949, 172 F.2d 222.

. Henry H. Cross Co. v. United States, 7 Cir., 1943, 133 F.2d 183; Louisville & Nashville R. Co. v. United States, supra, 267 U.S. at page 401, 45 S.Ct. at page 236.

. United States v. Powell, 1947, 330 U.S. 238, 67 S.Ct. 742, 743, 91 L.Ed. 868.

. Alcoa S.S. Co. v. United States, 1949, 338 U.S. 421, 429, 70 S.Ct. 190, 94 L.Ed. 225.

. Southern Pacific Co. v. United States, 1926, 272 U.S. 445, 447, 47 S.Ct. 123, 71 L.Ed. 343.