1. Where amounts earned by military transportation before
federal control were paid either to the respective railroads
entitled or to the Director General of Railroads (who, on taking
over their
Page 270 U. S. 321
properties, assumed the administration of their existing credits
and liabilities, and kept accounts of them, as matters distinct
from those arising during federal control), and where, subsequently
to such payments, the claims paid were in part disallowed, through
error, by the government accounting officials, and the amounts
disallowed were collected by them from the Director General by
deductions from Railroad Administration bills for transportation
during federal control, and were in turn charged by him against the
respective carriers,
held that final settlements made,
upon the return of the railroad properties, between the respective
carriers and the Director General, acting for the United States,
based upon accounts showing the above mentioned charges, and
covering all demands "as between the parties hereto, growing out of
the federal control of railroads," were not intended, and did not
operate, to release the United States from liability to the
carriers for the amounts so erroneously collected. Pp.
270 U. S. 327,
270 U. S.
330-333,
270 U. S.
336-337.
2. A railway company which, in error but without protest,
accepts payment of bills for government transportation at reduced
"land grant" rates cannot maintain a suit in the Court of Claims
for the difference between the amounts paid and the larger amounts
to which it was entitled. P.
270 U. S.
330.
60 Ct.Cls. 131
et seq. affirmed as to all cases except
No. 36, reversed.
Appeals from judgments of the Court of Claims in suits to
recover amounts due the plaintiffs for transportation service to
the government.
Page 270 U. S. 322
MR. JUSTICE BUTLER delivered the opinion of the Court.
No. 401
The United States appeals from a judgment against it for
$14,236.04. December 3, 1920, the Philadelphia & Reading
Railway Company, to which plaintiff, the Reading Company, is
successor, brought this action to recover its charges for
transportation of troops and military impedimenta by that company
and connecting carriers prior to federal control of railroads. When
the railroads were taken over, the United States owed the company
$24,900.01 for that transportation.
Federal control of railroads commenced December 28, 1917, and
ended March 1, 1920. Pursuant to the Federal Control Act, approved
March 21, 1918, c. 25, 40 Stat. 451, the Director General, February
18, 1920, entered into the standard form contract with the
Philadelphia & Reading and its affiliated companies. It was
agreed that the President took the company's accounts receivable as
of midnight, December 31, 1917; that all amounts collected by the
Director General on account of receivables should be credited by
him to the company; that he was authorized, to the extent of cash
realized upon the company's assets then on hand, to pay and charge
to the company expenses arising out of operation prior to federal
control, including reparation claims; that, unless objected to by
the company, he might pay and charge to the company expenses and
claims in excess of the cash so realized, and that, at the end of
federal control, the Director General should return to the company
all uncollected accounts.
Page 270 U. S. 323
Prior to June 14, 1918, there was paid by the disbursing officer
of the army to the Director General $26,157.20 on account of the
bills for transportation before federal control. February 18, 1920,
the Auditor of the War Department deducted $1,257.19 -- as to which
there is no controversy -- from the Director General's bills for
transportation during federal control, and the latter reimbursed
himself by deducting that amount from the $26,157.20 paid him by
the disbursing officer, leaving in his hands a balance of
$24,900.01.
June 18, 1918, the Comptroller ruled (24 Comp.Dec. 774) that,
for each 25 officers and enlisted men traveling, the United States
was entitled to a free car for the transportation of camp equipment
and property. But that decision was erroneous, and it was so held
June 13, 1921.
Missouri Pacific R. Co. v. United States,
56 Ct.Cls. 341, 348.
At different times in 1920, prior to July 16, the Auditor of the
War Department, in order to adjust payments to the basis of the
Comptroller's ruling, disallowed as overpayments items aggregating
$14,236.04 of the amount paid by the disbursing officer to the
Director General, and took that amount from pending Railroad
Administration bills for transportation during federal control. The
Director General deducted the same amount from the $24,900.01
remaining in his hands, leaving a balance of only $10,663.97 which
was credited to the company in the account "Assets, December 31,
1917, Collected." February 24, 1920, the Director General
promulgated General Order No. 66, providing for account incident to
the termination of federal control. This order (§ 5a) directed
that, where there were paid out of federal funds overcharge freight
claims in respect of traffic, the revenues from which were included
in corporate revenue, the amounts should be charged on the federal
books to the corporation in the account "Corporate Transactions,"
and,
Page 270 U. S. 324
on the corporate books, such amounts should be charged to an
appropriate suspense account and credited to the United States in a
corresponding account. This required the amount of the deduction,
$14,236.04, so to be charged and credited.
August 25, 1920, the War Department paid the Railroad
Administration a large sum in full settlement for all
transportation during federal control. Thereupon, the Director
General issued Accounting Circular 152, which announced the
settlement, and stated,
"Special attention is directed to the fact that the settlement
above referred to involves the War Department only, . . . and does
not include bills rendered in the federal accounts for
transportation service performed prior to federal control,"
and directed that unpaid bills for such transportation
"shall not be closed into the account 'War Department
Transportation Charges,' but, instead shall be charged to the
corporation through the account '(Name of Corporation) -- Corporate
Transactions.'"
The Court of Claims found that
"the final account of the final settlement between the Director
General of Railroads and the plaintiff reads as follows: 'United
States Railroad Administration, Director General of Railroads. --
Comparison of claim submitted by the Philadelphia & Reading
Railway Co. . . . with books of the central administration adjusted
to March 31, 1922.'"
The statement is printed in the margin.
*
The two accounts involved
Page 270 U. S. 325
are "Assets, Dec. 31, 1917, Collected," in which only $10,663.97
of the amount received by the Director General for company
transportation before federal control was credited to the company,
and "Corporate Transactions," in which the deductions making up the
balance, $14,236.04, were charged to the company. The final account
of the final settlement shows that the claims of the corporation
and the administration books were identical in respect of these
accounts.
The final settlement agreement is set forth in the findings. So
far as material, it is as follows:
"This agreement, entered into this 30th day of June, A.D.1922,
by and between James C. Davis, Director
Page 270 U. S. 326
General of Railroads and Agent of the President, acting on
behalf of the United States and the President, hereinafter called
the 'Director General,' and the Philadelphia & Reading Railway
Company (and here are given the names, of affiliated companies),
hereinafter called the 'companies,' witnesseth:"
"The said Director General hereby acknowledges payment of the
sum of eight million dollars ($8,000,000) by the said companies,
the receipt whereof is hereby acknowledged, in full satisfaction
and discharge of all claims, rights, and demands, of every kind and
character,
Page 270 U. S. 327
which the said Director General, or anyone representing or
claiming to represent the Director General, the United States, or
the President now has or hereafter may have or claim against the
said companies, or any of them, growing out of or connected with
the possession, use, and operation of the companies' property by
the United States during the period of federal control, or out of
the contract between the parties dated the 18th day of February,
1920, and the said companies, both jointly and severally, hereby
acknowledge the return to and receipt by them of all their property
and rights which they are entitled to, and further acknowledge that
the Director General has fully and completely complied with and
satisfied all obligations on his part, or on the part of the United
States, or the United States Railroad Administration, growing out
of federal control."
"The purpose and effect of this instrument is to evidence a
complete and final settlement of all demands of every kind and
character as between the parties hereto growing out of the federal
control of railroads, save and except that the following matters
are not included in this adjustment, and are not affected thereby.
. . . [The exceptions specified do not include the claim in
suit.]"
The United States contends that payment by the War Department of
the company's bills to the Director General charged him with
liability for the money, and that, when he paid part to the
company, and the latter executed the contract in final settlement
of all demands of every kind and character growing out of federal
control, the United States was released from the remainder.
By this instrument, the company acknowledged that the Director
General had returned to it all its property and rights, and had
satisfied all obligations on his part, or on the part of the United
States or the Railroad Administration, "growing out of federal
control," and it declared that the purpose of the agreement was to
evidence a final
Page 270 U. S. 328
settlement of all demands "as between the parties hereto,
growing out of the federal control of railroads." The United States
relies on the phrase "growing out of federal control" to show that
plaintiff's claim was an obligation or demand included in the
settlement. The phrase is general, and, if considered independently
of context and the transactions which led up to the agreement, its
meaning would be too indefinite and vague to have any significance.
The surrounding circumstances must be considered.
Reed v.
Insurance Company, 95 U. S. 23,
95 U. S. 30. The
President, as a war measure, took possession and the use of the
transportation systems of the country. The taking was temporary.
The Federal Control Act authorized agreements in respect of
compensation for the use of the property. The Transportation Act of
1920, § 202, c. 91, 41 Stat. 456, 459, directed that, as soon as
practicable after the termination of federal control, the President
should settle and wind up all matters "arising out of or incident
to federal control." A Director General was appointed, and a
Railroad Administration was created to unify control of all the
properties for the more efficient transportation of troops and war
materials. All control was taken out of the hands of the companies,
but the Director General made use of their former organizations,
officials, and employees. When the transfer of control was made, it
was convenient for all concerned -- if not, indeed, necessary --
that freight bills then remaining unpaid should be handled by the
persons in charge of the operating properties. There was no
expropriation of the companies' accounts receivable for
transportation before federal control. They did not become the
property of the United States. Amounts collected or paid out by the
Director General on account of assets or liabilities of the
companies existing or arising before federal control were dealt
with separately, and respectively credited and charged to the
companies. In making such collections
Page 270 U. S. 329
and disbursements, the Director General acted in respect of the
affairs of the company which were wholly distinct from transactions
arising from operation during federal control.
The War Department made use of Railroad Administration bills to
retake the supposed overcharges. The effect was the same as if
$14,236.04 had been deducted before payment directly from the
company's bills. Assuming that he had the power, the Director
General did not undertake to settle questions between the War
Department and the company in respect of freight bills for
transportation before federal control. Accounting Circular 152
shows that the Railroad Administration did not attempt to secure
the release of the War Department from liability for the unpaid
balance owing on company bills. The Director General's charge of
$14,236.04 against the company in the corporate transactions
account was the same as if the company had paid the amount in cash
to the Railroad Administration, to make it whole in respect of its
efforts to collect the company's bills. So far as the book entries
are concerned, the company retained its claim for transportation
against the United States, and plaintiff is entitled to recover,
unless the Philadelphia & Reading gave up its claim by the
final settlement agreement.
But the government contends that "the final account of the final
settlement" cannot be considered, and argues that it purports only
to adjust claims to March 31, 1922, while the "final settlement"
agreement was made June 30, 1922; that these documents have no
relation to each other, and that the account deals only with
details, whereas the contract of settlement embraces all demands,
whether included in the account or not. These contentions are not
sustained. The findings of fact must be accepted. The court found
that "that final account of the final settlement . . . reads as
follows." This is
Page 270 U. S. 330
unequivocal; the meaning is plain, and there is no room for
exposition. The only sum included for the company's transportation
before federal control is $10,663.97. The amount retaken,
$14,236.04, was charged to the company. In final settlement, the
company paid $8,000,000, the exact sum stated in the final
account.
Obviously, the transportation for which claim is made, and the
Auditor's ruling that the disbursing officer made overpayment, did
not grow out of federal control. And, if collection of company
bills by the Director General otherwise might be deemed to have
been incident to federal control, the book entries and the final
account show that the balance owing for the transportation in
question belonged to the company. By the standard form of contract,
the Director General was bound at the termination of federal
control to return to the company all uncollected accounts. This
action was pending more than a year and a half when the settlement
was made. If the parties intended to settle the claim sued on, a
dismissal of the action by consent should have followed. The
transactions out of which the Auditor's erroneous deductions grew
did not concern the Railroad Administration, and in respect of them
there never was any question between it and the company.
Plaintiff's claim was in no sense an obligation or demand against
the Railroad Administration or the United States in respect of the
federal control of railroads. The facts make it clear that the
final agreement did not release the United States from liability
for the freight charges in question.
No. 402
This is the Reading Company's cross-appeal. On the findings, it
claims judgment for $6,990.92 additional. Certain bills prepared by
the company were based on Class A rates on military impedimenta.
These bills were restated by the company without protest on the
basis of
Page 270 U. S. 331
Class D rates with land grant deductions. The restated bills
were paid. Certain other bills for like transportation were
originally stated on the basis of Class D rates with land grant
deductions, and were paid, and other bills for similar service were
withdrawn and restated for lesser sums; the amounts so claimed were
paid. The facts found by the Court of Claims are not sufficient to
justify any recovery, and bring the case presented on cross-appeal
within the ruling in
Oregon-Washington R. Co. v. United
States, 255 U. S. 339,
255 U. S. 345;
Louisville & Nashville R. Co. v. United States,
267 U. S. 395,
267 U. S. 401;
C., M. & St. P. Ry. v. United States, 267 U.
S. 403. The cross-appeal is without merit.
No. 403
The United States appeals from a judgment against it for
$48,439.68. This case is similar to No. 401. In 1916 and 1917,
plaintiff, Southern Railway Company, transported military
impedimenta for the United States, and presented its bills
therefor. The disbursing officer of the army paid some of them to
plaintiff in 1917, and, after the plaintiff's railroad was taken
over, paid others to the Director General. These amounts were
credited on federal books to plaintiff as "revenue prior to January
1, 1918." The Auditor of the War Department, following a ruling
made by the Comptroller, June 18, 1918, held that the disbursing
officer had made overpayments on account of these bills amounting
to $48,439.68, and, to recover the supposed overpayments,
deductions were made at different times from the bills of the
Railroad Administration for transportation during federal control.
Then the Director General charged the amount of these deductions to
plaintiff in an account designated "Corporate Transactions," and
they were credited to the Railroad Administration on the books of
plaintiff in a corresponding account.
Page 270 U. S. 332
The Auditor's finding that overpayments were made was erroneous.
Plaintiff was entitled to the amounts paid by the disbursing
officer. The government's sole contention is that the final
settlement in respect of matters growing out of federal control
operated to discharge the claim sued on. The Court of Claims
incorporated in its findings the final account of the final
settlement between the Director General and the plaintiff. Its form
is substantially the same as that set out in the margin in No. 401.
At the top of the statement, there is this notation: "(Final
settlement contract, June 22, 1921.)" The amount admitted by the
plaintiff to be due the Railroad Administration on the account
"Corporate Transactions" was less than the amount claimed by the
Railroad Administration. But the Court of Claims expressly found
that, prior to the settlement, the parties agreed upon the smaller
amount, and that there was no compromise of the amount charged
against the plaintiff in "Corporate Transactions;" that the full
amount charged by the Railroad Administration was paid by the
plaintiff, and included therein was the sum of $48,439.68, deducted
from Railroad Administration bills on account of supposed
overpayments of plaintiff's bills. The final settlement agreement
was made June 22, 1921. It is in the same form, and, so far as
concerns the matters here in controversy, has the same force and
effect, as that quoted in No. 401. That decision controls this
case.
No. 404
The United States appeals from a judgment for $15,143.91. This
case is similar to Nos. 401 and 403. In 1916 and 1917, plaintiff,
the St. Louis, Brownsville & Mexico Railway Company, and
connecting carriers, transported military impedimenta for the
United States, and plaintiff presented bills therefor. The
disbursing officer of the army paid some of them to plaintiff in
1917. When auditing the disbursing officer's account, the
Page 270 U. S. 333
Auditor of the War Department erroneously disallowed payments
made by him, and, pending settlement of the account, the company's
railroad was taken over by the President. In order to recover the
supposed overpayments, the Auditor deducted $15,143.91 from bills
of the Railroad Administration for transportation during federal
control, $13,035.97 during federal control, and the balance later.
The Railroad Administration charged the amount deducted against
plaintiff in the account "Corporate Transactions" in accordance
with General Order No. 66, and that amount was credited to the
Railroad Administration and charged against the War Department on
the plaintiff's books. There was a final settlement agreement
between the Director General and the plaintiff dated July 29, 1921.
The final account of settlement was made as of May 31, 1921. It
consisted of a comparison of claims submitted by the plaintiff with
the books of the central administration adjusted to that date. The
court expressly found that there was no dispute as to the amount
due from plaintiff to the Railroad Administration on the account
"Corporate Transactions," and that the same was paid in full in the
final settlement. Included in the amount was the sum of $15,143.91
deducted from Railroad Administration bills on account of supposed
overpayments. The final account relates to the settlement
agreement. The agreement shows that the Director General paid the
company the exact amount shown by the final account to be due the
corporation according to the administration books. The agreement is
in the same form, and, so far as concerns the matters here in
controversy, has the same force and effect as that quoted in No.
401. That decision controls in this case.
No. 398, No. 399, No. 400
In No. 398, the United States appeals from a judgment against it
for $12,176. The amount here in controversy
Page 270 U. S. 334
is $9,160.89. In 1916 and 1917, plaintiff, the New Haven and
connecting carriers, transported certain military impedimenta on
government bills of lading, and plaintiff, as last carrier,
presented its bills therefor. Plaintiff's transportation system was
taken over by the President December 28, 1917. The disbursing
officer of the army paid some of these bills to plaintiff before,
and some to the Railroad Administration after, the railroads were
taken over. In auditing the accounts of the disbursing officer, the
Auditor of the War Department, following the erroneous ruling of
the Comptroller (24 Comp. Dec. 774), disallowed as overpayments
$9,160.89 of the amount paid on these bills. The plaintiff refused
to refund. Then, in order to recover the supposed overpayments, the
Auditor deducted from the bills of the Railroad Administration
presented to the disbursing officer $7,295.54 during, and $1,865.35
after, federal control. The total was charged on the books of the
Railroad Administration to the plaintiff. General Order No. 68
created a trustee account to take effect at the termination of
federal control, midnight February 29, 1920. By this order,
railroads that had been under federal control were made trustees of
the Railroad Administration to collect its unpaid bills, to pay its
liabilities, and generally to wind up its unfinished business. The
cash pertaining to the transportation business was turned over to
the railroads to be carried to that account, and money erroneously
paid into the trustee account by deposit could be withdrawn by the
consent of the Director General. In January, 1921, plaintiff paid
into the trustee account $9,160.89 to make good to the Railroad
Administration the deductions erroneously made by the Auditor of
the War Department, and, on its own books, plaintiff charged that
amount to the War Department. March 21, 1922, this action was
commenced.
October 26, 1923, there was a final settlement between the
plaintiff and the Director General, consisting of a final
Page 270 U. S. 335
account and agreement. The form of the account is similar to
that printed in the margin in No. 401. And that agreement, so far
as concerns the government's insistence that plaintiff released the
claim in suit, contains the same language as that quoted and
discussed in No. 401, and, in this case, the agreement contains an
exception:
"This settlement does not include or affect any moneys or assets
of the Director General turned over to the company pursuant to
General Order No. 68, the account created by this order to be
adjusted as though this agreement had not been made."
There was no overpayment on account of plaintiff's bills.
Plaintiff was entitled to the amount paid by the disbursing
officer, and rightly refused to refund. The effect of the auditor's
deductions was to compel the Railroad Administration to refund for
account of plaintiff the amount of the supposed overpayments. The
amount so refunded was rightly charged to plaintiff, and was repaid
by deposit in the trustee account. The agreement expressly excluded
that account and left it to be adjusted as if no settlement had
been made. The transaction out of which the Auditor's deductions
arose did not concern the Railroad Administration, and, in respect
of that matter, there never was any question or dispute between it
and plaintiff. The matter in controversy was wholly between the War
Department and plaintiff. The effect of the exception quoted was to
exclude plaintiff's claim from the settlement, and to leave the
plaintiff free to continue to prosecute this action to recover the
amount erroneously deducted as overpayments on plaintiff's bills,
and plaintiff's claim was in no sense an obligation or a demand
against the United States in respect of the federal control of
railroads.
No. 399 and No. 400 are controlled by our decision in this
case.
Page 270 U. S. 336
No. 499 and No. 500
No. 499 is an appeal by the United States from a judgment
against it for $18,796.68. The amount here involved is $16,588.13.
The transportation system of plaintiff, the Baltimore & Ohio
Railroad Company, was taken over by the President December 28,
1917, and federal control continued until March 1, 1920. In 1916
and 1917, plaintiff and connecting carriers transported troops upon
government transportation requests. Plaintiff, as initial carrier,
presented bills therefor based on net per capita fares obtained by
combinations only on the western gateways specified in the
inter-territorial military arrangements of 1916 and 1917. Payments
amounting to $289,774.89 were made by the proper disbursing
officer. Some of these payments, $172,210.31, were made to
plaintiff before federal control. The balance were made during
federal control to the Director General, and were credited to
plaintiff. The Auditor of the War Department, in auditing the
accounts of the disbursing officer, disallowed as overpayments on
account of these bills $20,978.45, and, at different times from
March 12 to September 17, 1920, deducted from bills of the Railroad
Administration the amount of the supposed overpayments. These
deductions, to the amount of $16,588.13, were obtained by routing
not authorized by the inter-territorial military arrangements. The
disallowances were held erroneous on the authority of
Atchison,
etc., Ry v. United States, 256 U. S. 205. The
government does not support them. The Court of Claims held that
deductions made by the auditor amounting to $4,390.32 were proper,
and, as no cross-appeal was taken, they are not here involved.
Of the total amount deducted, plaintiff refunded $13.58 to the
War Department, and the Railroad Administration charged back to
plaintiff $20,939.52 through the account "Federal Assets
Collected," and $25.35 through the account "Corporate
Transactions."
Page 270 U. S. 337
In December, 1921, the plaintiff paid into the trustee account,
created in accordance with General Order No. 68 to the credit of
the Administration, $20,939.52, and charged that amount against the
War Department.
July 27, 1922, there was a final settlement between the Director
General and the plaintiff. That agreement, so far as concerns the
government's insistence that plaintiff released the claim in suit,
contains the same language as that quoted in No. 401. The agreement
also contains an exception in the same language, and having the
same force and effect, as that quoted in No. 398. Our decisions in
those cases are controlling here.
No. 500 is also controlled by them.
No. 36
This is an appeal by the plaintiff, the Pere Marquette, from a
judgment that it is not entitled to recover. In 1917, plaintiff
transported military impedimenta on government bills of lading, and
presented its bill, based on lawfully published tariffs less land
grant deductions, amounting to $3,828.08. The disbursing officer
paid that amount to plaintiff. Subsequently the Auditor of the War
Department, following a decision of the Comptroller, erroneously
disallowed the full amount. The plaintiff's railroad was then under
federal control, and the Auditor deducted an equal amount from sums
due the Railroad Administration for transportation in October and
November, 1918. The government does not support the Auditor's
disallowance of plaintiff's claim or the deduction of an equivalent
amount from the Railroad Administration.
July, 1920, in an adjustment of accounts between plaintiff and
the Railroad Administration, the amount in question was credited by
plaintiff to the Railroad Administration, and it remains
outstanding on plaintiff's books as an unpaid balance on its bill,
paid, but afterwards disallowed, by the Auditor. November 12, 1921,
a final settlement
Page 270 U. S. 338
was made between the plaintiff and the Railroad Administration.
The contract contains the same general language in respect of the
purpose of the instrument as that considered in our decision in No.
401.
This action was commenced September 2, 1921, and on December 10,
1923, the Court of Claims gave judgment, citing
Louisville
& Nashville R. Co. v. United States, and
Philadelphia
& Reading R. Co. v. United States, decided in that court
November 5, 1923. But, in the
Louisville & Nashville
case, the judgment was vacated, and, on rehearing, a judgment was
entered in favor of the company April 26, 1925. After the appeal in
the case at bar, new trials were granted by the Court of Claims in
other similar cases which had been decided for the United States,
and January 5, 1925, judgment was entered for plaintiff in each.
Appeals were taken by the United States; motions to advance were
granted. This case and the others decided with it were argued and
submitted at the same time.
The government contends that there is no finding that plaintiff
repaid the Railroad Administration the amount erroneously deducted
by the Auditor, that the book entries are not sufficient evidence
of repayment, and that it was the intention of the settlement
agreement to include this claim as one growing out of federal
control. But the finding is that plaintiff gave appropriate credit
to the Railroad Administration, and that plaintiff's books show its
bill has not been paid. General Order No. 66, General Order No. 68,
and Accounting Circular 152 were promulgated by the Railroad
Administration for general application. It is to be presumed that
the rules there laid down were followed, that the amount in
question was charged back to plaintiff on the federal books, and
that settlement was made on that basis. Moreover, if it had been
the intention of the settlement agreement to include this claim as
one growing out of federal control, a consent
Page 270 U. S. 339
dismissal of this action, then pending, should have followed.
Our decision in No. 401 controls this case.
Judgments in Nos. 401, 402, 403, 404, 398, 399, 400, 499,
and 500 affirmed.
Judgment in No. 36 reversed.
MR. JUSTICE HOLMES took no part in the consideration of these
cases.
*
bwm:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Corporation Administra-
claims as of tion books as Difference
Mar. 31, 1922 of Mar. 31, 1922
DUE TO CORPORATION
Compensation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
$36,861,152.00 $36,814,668.84 $ 46,483.16
Less advances, loans, etc. . . . . . . . . . . . . 23,515,000.00
23,515,000.00
-------------- -------------- -------------
13,346,152.00 13,299,668.84 46,483.16
Rental interest on completed . . . . . . . . . . . 421,260.54
421,260.54
-------------- -------------- -------------
13,767,412.54 13,720,928.38 46,483.16
============== ============== =============
OPEN ACCOUNTS DUE TO CORPORATION
Cash on hand, Dec. 31, 1917. . . . . . . . . . . . 3,751,989.43
3,751,989.43
Agent's and conductor's balance, Dec. 31, 1917 . . 5,741,370.49
5,741,370.49
Assets, Dec. 31, 1917, collected . . . . . . . . . 4,959,283.87
4,959,288.87
-------------- -------------- -------------
Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14,452,642.79
14,452,643.79
============== ============== =============
OPEN ACCOUNTS DUE FROM CORPORATION
Liabilities, Dec. 31, 1917, paid . . . . . . . . .
$13,543,371.73 13,543,371.73
Corporate transactions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3,195,291.81
3,195,291.81
Expense prior to Jan. 1, 1918. . . . . . . . . . . 2,301,240.96
2,301,240.96
Revenue prior to Jan. 1, 1918. . . . . . . . . . . 523,946.05
523,946.05
-------------- -------------- -------------
Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19,563,850.55
19,563,850.55
============== ============== =============
Balance due from corporation on open accounts. . . 5,111,206.76
5,111,206.76
Balance due to corporation . . . . . . . . . . . . 8,656,205.78
8,609,722.62 $ 46,483.16
============== ============== =============
OTHER ITEMS DUE TO CORPORATION
Material and supplies. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4,468,333.00
1,188,287.23 $3,280,045.77
Equipment retired-Normal . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,983,888.05
1,925,887.31 58,000.74
Road property retired and not replaced -- Normal . 233,331.36
63,653.95 169,677.41
Road property retired and not replaced -- Fire . . 13,846.00
11,108.12 2,737.88
Road property retired and replaced . . . . . . . . 654,723.04
654,723.04
Preliminary surveys-Projects abandoned . . . . . . 10,405.54
10,405.54
-------------- -------------- -------------
Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7,364,426.99
3,199,342.15 4,165,184.84
============== ============== =============
OTHER ITEMS DUE FROM CORPORATION
Additions and betterments. . . . . . . . . . . . .
$13,768,317.83 $13,768,317.83
Salvage from A. & B. for war purposes. . . . . . . 4,932.43
4,932.43
Office furniture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16,985.24
16,985.24
Interest other than rental . . . . . . . . . . . . 446,002.06
336,655.93 $ 109,346.13
Allocated equipment account. . . . . . . . . . . . 12,747,077.42
12,747,077.42
Adjustments subsequent to March, 1922. . . . . . . 4,141.22
4,141.22
Interest on subsequent adjustments . . . . . . . . 465.84
465.84
Adjustments unapproved by corporation. . . . . . . 5,905.46
5,905.46
Interest on unapproved adjustments . . . . . . . . 664.29
664.29
-------------- -------------- -------------
Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26,987,922.04
26,885,145.66 102,776.38
============== ============== =============
Balance due from corporation on other items. . . . 19,623,395.05
23,685,803.51 4,062,408.46
============== ============== =============
Balance due from corporation . . . . . . . . . . . 10,967,189.27
15,076,080.89 4,108,891.62
DEPRECIATION OBLIGATIONS
Equipment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3,866,526.91
3,777,229.00 89,297.91
-------------- -------------- -------------
Balance due from corporation . . . . . . . . . . . 7,100,662.36
11,298,851.89 4,198,189.53
============== ============== =============
MAINTENANCE
Way and structures -- Under. . . . . . . . . . . . 2,609,552.71
2,321,411.00 288,141.71
Equipment -- Under . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 611,689.21
977,440.89 365,751.68
-------------- -------------- -------------
Balance due to corporation on maintenance. . . . . 3,221,241.92
3,298,851.89 77,609.97
============== ============== =============
Net balance due from corporation . . . . . . . . . 3,879,420.44
8,000,000.00 4,120,579.56
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ewm: