Case: CHICAGO, MILWAUKEE AND SAINT PAUL RAILWAY COMPANY v. THE UNITED STATES
Abbreviation: Chicago, Milwaukee & Saint Paul Railway Co. v. United States
Decision Date: 1888-05-14
Docket Number: 
Citation: 23 Ct. Cl. 504
Volume: 23
Reporter: United States Court of Claims Reports
Court: Supreme Court of the United States
Jurisdiction: United States
Parties: CHICAGO, MILWAUKEE AND SAINT PAUL RAILWAY COMPANY v. THE UNITED STATES.
Judges: 
Pages: 504–504

Head Matter:
CHICAGO, MILWAUKEE AND SAINT PAUL RAILWAY COMPANY v. THE UNITED STATES.
(No opinion in C. Cls.;
127 U. S. R., 406.)
On the defendants’ Demurrer.
The claimant in 1879 entered into sundry contracts with the Post-Office Department to carry the mails on specially-designated routes, at rates fixed under acts of Congress of March 3, 1873; June 12, 1876, and June 17, 1878. It carried the mails as required by the contract, except when prevented by the elements or other unavoidable disasters. The Post-Office Department deducted from the pay of the petitioner at different times a large sum of money, claiming the right to do so because of the failure of the petitioner to carry the mails on schedule time.
The court below sustains the demurrer of the defendants and dismisses the claimant’s petition without an opinion. (But see the J., P. & M. E. E. case, 21 O. Cls. B., 155.)
The judgment of the court below is affirmed. The Supreme Court decides
(1) Section 5 of the Act of March 3, 1879 (20 Stat. L. ch. 180, pp. 355,358) did not operate to repeal section 3962, Eevised Statutes; and when it was itself repealed by the Aet of June 11, 1880, (21 Stat. L., ch. 206, pp. 177, 178), section 3962, Eevised Statutes, remained in force against railroad companies contracting' to carry the mails.
(2) Where there are two provisions of law in the statute relating to the same subject, effect is to be given to both, if practicable.
(3) A statute will not operate to repeal a prior statute merely because it repeats some of the provisions of tire prior act, and omits others, or adds new provisions ; but in such cases the later act operates as a repeal of the former one only when it plainly appears that it was intended as a. substitute for the first act.

Opinion:
Mr. Justice Field
delivered the opinion of the Supreme Court May 14, 1888.