Kansas City, Mexico & Orient Railway Co. v. United States
United States Court of Claims
The Reporter's statement of the case: The paramount question in these cases is whether or not the Postmaster General was legally authorized to issue order No. 165 as amended by order No. 412 and thereafter to apply it in the computation of claimants compensation for carrying the mails.
Read the full summary
The Reporter's statement of the case: The paramount question in these cases is whether or not the Postmaster General was legally authorized to issue order No. 165 as amended by order No. 412 and thereafter to apply it in the computation of claimants compensation for carrying the mails. In order to properly determine this question it will be necessary to investigate the construction of the provisions of the acts of March 3, 1873,17 Stat., 558; March 3, 1905, 33 Stat., 1082-87; July 12, 1876, 19 Stat., 79; June 17, 1878, 20 Stat., 142, and March 2, 1907, 34 Stat., 1205-12, relating to railroad…
1Opinion of the CourtCampbell, Chief Justice
These suits were brought.to recover compensation for mail transportation alleged to be due the parties, respectively, and have been heard together. A large number of similar cases were taken upon submission when these were heard. The questions involved are substantially the same as those in Chicago & Alton R. R. Co., 49 C. Cls., 463, and Yazoo & Mississippi Valley R. R. Co., 50 C. Cls., 15. The two latter cases were appealed to the Supreme Court, where they were affirmed by an equally divided court. That ruling is not an authority for the determination of other cases. Hertz v. Woodman, 218 U.…
2Cases cited48 opinions
- United States Ex Rel. Attorney General of the United States v. Delaware & Hudson Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1909
- Wood v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1842
- Pennsylvania v. Wheeling & Belmont Bridge Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1856
- United States v. TynenSupreme Court of the United States · 1871
- Bank of United States v. DandridgeSupreme Court of the United States · 1827
43 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- Coumaris v. District of Columbia Alcoholic Beverage Control BoardDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1995
- Coumaris v. DIST. OF COL. ALCOHOLIC BEV. BD.District of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1995