Case: EASTERN RAILROAD COMPANY v. THE UNITED STATES
Abbreviation: Eastern Railroad Co. v. United States
Decision Date: 1889-02-04
Docket Number: 
Citation: 24 Ct. Cl. 528
Volume: 24
Reporter: United States Court of Claims Reports
Court: Supreme Court of the United States
Jurisdiction: United States
Parties: EASTERN RAILROAD COMPANY v. THE UNITED STATES.
Judges: 
Pages: 528–528

Head Matter:
EASTERN RAILROAD COMPANY v. THE UNITED STATES.
[20 C. Cls. R., 23; 129 U. S. R., 391.]
On the claimants Appeal.
A railroad carries the mails from July 1, 1874, to June 30, 1877, under a formal written contract, and from July 1, 1877, to June 30, 1881, under an implied contract. On the 1st July, 1878, the Postmaster-General reduces the compensation 5 per cent., pursuant to the Act 17th June, 1878, (20 Stat. I,., 140).
The court below decides:
(1) Under the decisions of the Supreme Court (104 U. S. E., 680, 687) a statute ordering a reduction of railway compensation did not extend to an existing valid contract. But where the service was rendered under an implied contract, and the railroad continued after notice to perform and to accept without objection the reduced compensation, . it thereby consented to a modification of its existing contract relations with the Government.
(2) The statutes 'relating to the duration of mail-transportation contracts and to compensation for railway service (Eev. Stat., $§ 3943, 3956, 3970, 4002; Act 2d July, 1876, 19 Stat. L., 79, § 1), do not prescribe a period of time as the term of such contracts, nor fix a rate of compensation as the consideration for such services; they merely designate a maximum which the Postmaster-General can not exceed.
(3) An order of the Postmaster-General stating the compensation to be allowed for mail transportation service “ July 1, 1877> to June 30, 1881 (unless othencise ordered)," does not create a binding contract for the period named.
The decision of the court below is affirmed on the same grounds.

Opinion:
Mr. Justice Hablan
delivered the opinion of the Supreme Court, February 4, 1889.