United States Supreme Court Cases & Opinions

U.S. Supreme Court

Union Pacific Railway Company v. United States, 117 U.S. 355 (1886)

Union Pacific Railway Company v. United States

Argued January 26, 1886

Decided March 29, 1886

117 U.S. 355

Syllabus

Section 6 of the Act of July 1, 1862, in aid of the construction of the railroads to the Pacific, required them to transport mails, troops, supplies, etc., for the government "at fair and reasonable rates of compensation, not to exceed the amounts paid by private parties for the same service." The Union Pacific Railway Company filed its petition in the Court of Claims setting forth the performance of such services for the government and its charges for the same and averring that the several amounts were according to rates fixed by it both as respects the government and the public which were fair and reasonable, and not exceeding the amounts paid by private parties for the same kind of service. The government denied the reasonableness of the rates, and averred that less amounts allowed by it were fair and reasonable. The Court of Claims, after hearing proof, found

"that the amounts allowed and retained by the Treasury Department for transportation of mails as aforesaid are a fair and reasonable compensation for the service and not in excess of the rates paid by private parties for the same service."

Held: That this was a proper form of finding.

The provisions of § 6 of the Act of July 1, 1822, respecting rates for transportation done by the Union Pacific Railway Company for the United States, govern such transportation over its bridge between Council Bluffs and Omaha.

The service rendered by a railway company in transporting a local passenger from one point on its line to another is not identical with the service rendered in transporting a through passenger over the same rails.

The findings in this case were before the Court on a motion for a certiorari, reported in 116 U. S. 116 U.S. 402. After that motion was denied, the cause came on for hearing and decision on the merits. The case is stated in the opinion of the Court.

Page 117 U. S. 356