Case: GEORGE W. HARTMAN v. THE UNITED STATES
Abbreviation: Hartman v. United States
Decision Date: 1905-01-03
Docket Number: No. 23262
Citation: 40 Ct. Cl. 133
Volume: 40
Reporter: United States Court of Claims Reports
Court: United States Court of Claims
Jurisdiction: United States
Parties: GEORGE W. HARTMAN v. THE UNITED STATES.
Judges: 
Pages: 133–139

Head Matter:
GEORGE W. HARTMAN v. THE UNITED STATES.
[No. 23262.
Decided January 3, 1905.]
On the Proofs.
The Postal Regulations (§ 11) provide that aii officer, clerk, or employee “ traveling on the business of the Department, under the order or direction of the Postmaster-General, will be allowed his actual and necessary expenses.” The claimant, a railway postal clerk, is notified when appointed, “ you will be obliged to move to some point (to be designated by your division superintendent) on the lines of road upon which you run.” The claimant is assigned to ordinary railway service duty, which takes him away from home and costs him about $180 per year for hoard and lodging while away from home.
I.The statutes authorizing and fixing the compensation of postal railway clerks constitute an express contract; and the Postmaster-General can not, by the terms of an appointment, either detract from or enlarge the compensation.
II.The nature of the business of a railway postal clerk, requiring him to pass to and from the termini of his route, is an inseparable incident to the service, necessarily involving expenses to be borne by himself.
III.-An express contract, though made by statute, excludes the possibility of an implied contract.
IV. A railway postal clerk is not “ an officer, cleric, or employee ” traveling “ under the order or direction of the Postmaster-General ” within the intent of the Post-Office Regulation (§ 11). That regulation refers only to officers detailed for special duty.
V.The appropriation acts appropriating for actual and necessary expenses of general superintendents and “ railway postal clerics, while actually traveling on business of the Department and away from their several designated headquarters.” by their own language exclude railway postal clerks traveling in the discharge of their ordinary duty.
VI. The primary duty of a railway postal elerk is in a moving ear, and can be discharged only in that manner, the expense of which is covered by general appropriations for such services.
The Reporters'’ statement of the case:
The following are the facts of the case as found by the court:
I. Claimant became and has ever since been a railway postal clerk by virtue of a commission issued under the authorities of the Post-Office Department by the General Superintendent of the Pathway Mail Service, dated March 11,1893; that this commission, among other things, contains the following: “ You will be obliged to move to some point (to be designated by your division superintendent) on the lines of road upon which you run.” .
II. All railway postal clerks are assigned to particular trains between designated points, and leaving at certain time, by a chief clerk of the Railwaj'- Mail Service. The duties of a railway postal clerk are to go to the train to which he is assigned; to enter the mail car and receive the mails placed in his charge; to distribute, assort, and accompany the mails from the initial point to some other point; while in the car to dispatch mail to different post-offices and other railway post-offices, and on arrival at the end to record his arrival; and then on the return he perforins the same duties until he arrives at the initial point of his route. He completes the “ run” by turning over to the proper custodian whatever mails he may have at the termination of his run, and then he makes reports to designated officials of the Post-Office Department, giving a history of the run for the trip. Railway postal clerks must, before they go upon their runs, prepare slips or little address tags to show what post-office or railway post-office the mails are to be dispatched to; these tags must be stamped with date, and are -to be prepared at home. Railway postal clerks perform numerous other duties besides those performed within railway post-offices.
III. Railway postal clerks must reside at some point on the route to which they are assigned. Such point must be one selected, approved of, or designated by the officials of the Railway Mail Service. Such point must be the initial point of the route, unless the clerk, prior to the assignment, has acquired home property at some other point on the route, or ■there exist other urgent reasons for making an exception. Even in such cases the clerks must move to the initial point of the route unless the train schedules are so that they can without fail reach the initial point in time to perform their official duties. In all events the clerks are bound at all times to know all orders and instructions governing their official duties, posted or sent to them at the initial point of the route.
IV. Railway postal clerks are subject to three different kinds of orders: (1) The general orders issued from the Superintendent’s office; (2) the general orders for the line, issued by the chief clerk; (3) special orders governing individual clerks. Claimant received such orders and instructions at Kansas City, the initial point of his route of travel. All railway postal clerks uniformly receive their orders and instructions at the initial point of their travel.
V. The superior officers of this claimant, and of all other postal clerks, possess and exercise the power to direct and to change the time and place of the official duties of this claimant and other postal clerks. Chief clerks of the Railway Mail Service have and exercise the power to detail railway postal clerks to perform work on other routes than those to ■which the clerks are appointed or assigned. The initial point of travel of railway postal clerks is always designated by their chief clerks and other superior officers.
VI. The claim of this claimant is for money paid for lodgings and meals while traveling in the performance of his official duty; that the expenses were actually and necessarily incurred. These expenses were incurred while claimant was absent from the initial point of his route of travel and while away from his home. Claimant requests the finding of the amount so expended during the time covered by his petition to be the sum of $743.75.
VII. Claimant has performed duties as a railway postal clerk from June 1, 1897, to May 1, 1903. He has not assigned his claim or any part of it, or any interest in it. He has always been a citizen of the United States, and he has never in any way aided a rebellion against the United States.
YIII. The number of chief clerks of Railway Mail Service and the number of other railway post-office clerks in the Service on the dates named below and during the time to which the several statutes before mentioned applied were as follows:
Mr. George O. Tiehenor and Mr. Svend ScMbsby for the claimants. Mr. George Reinhart ivas on the brief.
Mr. George M. Anderson and Mr. Joseph Stewart (with whom was Mr. Assistant Attorney-General Pradt) for the defendants.

Opinion:
Wrigi-xt, J.,
delivered the opinion of the court:
Bjr section 4025, Revised Statutes, and the act of July 31, 1882 (22 Stat. L., 180), the claimant was, March 11,1893, by the Postmaster-General appointed a railway post-office clerk of class 1, between Omaha, Nebr., and Kansas City, Mo., with pay at the rate of $800 per annum. Pie accepted the appointment, entered upon and discharged the duties of the emplo3unent from such time to May 1, 1903, and still continues in such service. For the year ended June 30, 1897, and each subsequent year to May 1, 1903, he expended for each year at the rate of $180 for actual and necessary board- and lodging while in the discharge of his duties as such railway post-office clerk, upon the line of his route away from Kansas City, the place of his residence. He contends that he is entitled to be reimbursed these expenses bjr the defendants, and this suit is brought to recover the same. The argument produced in support of this contention is (1), that of an implied contract on the part of defendants to pay the expenses so incurred; (2) the postal regulations, section 11, providing that any officer, clerk, or employee of the Post-Office Department, traveling on the business of the Department, upon the order or direction of the Postmaster-General, will be allowed his actual and necessary expenses, which will be paid out of the appropriation for the Service for which said travel is incurred; and '(3) the appropriation acts of the Congress.
The answer to the first of these contentions is the sufficient statement that the acts of Congress, b3r the sole authority of which claimant was appointed, and his acceptance of such appointment, constituted the contract between himself and the defendants. The Postmaster-General could not by the terms of his appointment either detract or enlarge upon the authority given for such appointment. The pay the law attached to the appointment accepted by claimant was $800 per annum, no more, no less. The nature of the business he accepted to perform required him to pass to and from the termini of his route at stated times, and was an inseparable incident to the service he voluntarily undertook; and the service could not be performed without incurring the expenses he now seeks, to charge against the defendants, in addition to the compensation stipulated and paid to him. The contract claimant made with the defendants was actual and express, excluding the possibility of an implied contract.
Nor does the postal regulation referred to give the claimant support for his position. That regulation concerns only any officer, clerk, or employee of the Post-Office Department traveling on the business of the Department, upon the order or direction of the Postmaster-General. Claimant was not traveling on such business upon the order or direction of the Postmaster-General, but in pursuance of the requirements of the statute in that behalf. It is true he was appointed by that officer, but his duties were defined by the law that permitted such appointment, and it is clear the regulation has no application to a railway postal clerk, without a detail for special duty and orders to travel in its performance, and there is no pretense that this was true in claimant's case.
Congress would doubtless have the power to appropriate for such expenses after the appointment of claimant, so as to confer the right to reimbursement, and it is insisted this was done.. If so, none of the officers of the Department, whose duty it was to see that the laws in that respect were duly executed, ever understood the appropriations were for such a purpose. This, however, would not deprive claimant of his right to reimbursement if by the appropriation acts the Congress so intended. The total inadequacy of such appropriations for such purpose goes far to exclude such intention, if it were necessary to refer to this in reaching the proper conclusion. The plain language of the acts themselves, however, excludes every supposition that Congress so intended. To instance in this respect, the language of the act of March 3, 1903 (32 Stat. L., 1173), being as favorable as any to the claimant, is as follows:
" For actual and necessary expenses of General Superintendent, Assistant General Superintendent, chief clerk, office of General Superintendent, assistant chief clerk, office of General Superintendent, division superintendents, assistant division superintendents, chief clerks, and railway postal clerks, while actually traveling on business of the Department and away from their several designated headquarters, twenty-one thousand dollars."
It is plain the service so described relates to superintendents' duties, and such clerks and postal clerks as might be detailed or detached for duties in aid of superintendents in the discharge of which travel was necessary. Travel duty of superintendents was and is exceptional, and hence the necessity of a provision to meet the expense thereof.
The designated headquarters alluded to in the statute can only mean a central or chief place where persons in authority are stationed, and from which orders and information may be issued, and would have no proper significance unless limited to the duties of superintendents. The primary duty of postal clerks is in the moving car, and could be discharged only in that manner, the expense of which was covered by the general appropriation for that purpose. There is no pretense that claimant was specially detached to assist the superintendent or any of his subordinates, or that he performed any such duties, but only discharged the primary or ordinary duties of a railway postal clerk in the cars provided for the purpose of a railway post-office.
Entertaining the views we have expressed it follows the claimant can not recover, and his petition will be dismissed.