Legal Opinion

Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad v. United States

United States Court of Claims

Decided December 6, 1926No. C-1060Published

1Opinion of the CourtCampbell, Chief Justice

The first question for determination is whether plaintiff can maintain the action. It was an intermediate carrier, and the railroad company, upon whose line the shipments originated — the initial carrier — has been paid and has in turn paid the connecting or intermediate carriers. The *659initial carrier’s bill was subjected to land-grant deduction on the basis of 100 per cent land grant so far as plaintiff’s mileage is concerned, the service having been rendered prior to the act of October 6, 1917, 40 Stat. 361, but during the war emergency.

The plaintiff received a proportion of the initial…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Baker v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1921
  2. St. Louis v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1923

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API