Case: THE YAZOO AND MISSISSIPPI VALLEY RAILROAD COMPANY v. THE UNITED STATES
Abbreviation: Yazoo & Mississippi Valley Railroad v. United States
Decision Date: 1914-12-07
Docket Number: [No. 31134
Citation: 50 Ct. Cl. 15
Volume: 50
Reporter: United States Court of Claims Reports
Court: United States Court of Claims
Jurisdiction: United States
Parties: THE YAZOO AND MISSISSIPPI VALLEY RAILROAD COMPANY v. THE UNITED STATES.
Judges: 
Pages: 15–16

Head Matter:
THE YAZOO AND MISSISSIPPI VALLEY RAILROAD COMPANY v. THE UNITED STATES.
[No. 31134.
Decided December 7, 1914.]
On the Proofs.
Where the statute directs a method of ascertaining the average weight of mail carried and prescribes a maximum compensation therefor, the Postmaster General can pay less, but not more, than the maximum fixed by the statute. This case, being similar, is controlled by the principles announced in the Chicago & Alton case, 49 0. Cls., 463.
The Reporter's statement of the case:
The facts in this case are the same as the facts found by the court in the Chicago c& Alton case, 49 C. Cls., 463.
Messrs. Alex. Britton, John 8. Barbour, and 8. A. Put-man for the plaintiff. Mr. R. Walton Moore and Britton <& Gray were on the briefs.
Mr. Assistant Attorney General Huston Thompson and Mr. Joseph Stewart (Second Assistant Postmaster-General) for the defendants.

Opinion:
Campbell, Chief Justice,
delivered the opinion of the court:
This case is controlled by the same principles which govern the Chicago & Alton case.
The claimant contends that it is not bound by the terms of the " distance circular " sent out by the Postmaster General. It hence follows that any right of recovery rests either upon the ground that the law fixes the compensation to which it is entitled for carrying the mails or upon the ground that it is entitled to reasonable compensation for the services rendered in said matter. We may dismiss the last suggestion because, aside from any other consideration, the record does not disclose evidence upon which the court could proceed in that regard. We do not think that the statute fixed a rate of compensation absolutely; but, on the contrary, we think the statute directed a method of ascertaining the average weight of mail carried and prescribed a maximum price which the Postmaster General was authorized to pay for the carriage of the average weights of mails ascertained according to the provisions of the statute. The Postmaster General could pay less, but not more, than the maximum fixed by law. The railroad company could refuse to agree to the Postmaster General's proposals, but a mere protest was not sufficient.
The petition will be dismissed.