
    BALTIMORE & OHIO RAILROAD COMPANY v. THE UNITED STATES
    
    [No. B-73.
    Decided February 16, 1925]
    
      On the Proofs
    
    
      Railroad rates; payments received without objection.- — See Oregon-Washington R. & N. Go., 255 ü. S. 339; 54 C. Cls. 131; Baltimore & Ohio R. R. Go. case, 52 C. Cls. 468.
    
      Same; party fare combinations.- — See Norfolk Southern R. R. Go. case, 59 C. Cls. 517; also Atchison-, Topeka & Santa Fe Ry. Go. case, 256 U. S. 205.
    
      Same; military arrangements; usually traveled routes. — Where the settlement by an accounting officer is based on a fare applicable via “ a usually traveled route for military traffic,” as authorized by the so-called military arrangements, plaintiff can not recover on basis of fare via another route similarly authorized.
    
      Same; contract equalisers; 50 per cent reduction. — -See St. Louis, Brownsville & Mexico Ry. Go. case, 58 C. Cls. 619.
    
      Same; Railroad Administration; final settlement. — See Reading Go., ante, p. 131; Southern Ry. Go.,' ante, p. 156; New York, New Haven <£• Hartford R. R. Go. case, ante, p. 174.
    
      The Reporter's statement of the case:
    
      Messrs. John F. McGarron and George E. Hamilton, for the plaintiff.
    
      Messrs. A. A. McLaughlin and Louis R. Mehlinger, with whom was Mr. Assistant Attorney General Robert H. Lovett, for the defendant. Mr. Perry W. Howard was on the brief.
    The following are the facts as found by the court:
    I. The plaintiff is a corporation duly incorporated under the laws of the State of Maryland. At the times of the different transactions hereinafter set out iA these findings of fact, except during the period of Federal control, the plaintiff operated, and still operates, its system of railroads in various States of the United States, doing business as a common carrier of passengers and freight for hire and reward, under tariffs issued by it and its connecting lines, duly published and filed with the Interstate Commerce Commission according to law.
    II. Before the services hereinafter described were rendered the railroad carriers of the United States generally, including the plaintiff, entered into agreements with the United States regulating fares and allowances for the transportation of United States troops and property, said agreements being variously entitled “Interterritorial military agreements,” “ Interterritorial military arrangements,” etc. Said agreements were executed on behalf of the carriers by their duly authorized agents and on behalf of the United States by the Quartermaster General of the Army, the Chief of Bureau of Navigation of the Navy, and the Quartermaster of the United States Marine Corps. The said military arrangements, effective July 1, 1916, on page 6, contained the following stipulation :
    “1. Party fares may be used as factors in constructing through net fares to and from central trunk line, southeastern, and New England territories, in the understanding that the basing points shall be Chicago, St. Louis, Memphis, Vicksburg, and New Orleans only. Neither two or more party fares nor a party fare and an individual fare east or west of the gateways named may be combined in establishing a basing fare to or from the basing point. Party fares used to and from basing points named must be authorized as one through party fare to or from such basing points, as the case may be. A party fare or an individual fare published as one through fare to or from the basing points named may, however, be combined with authorized individual fares east or west of such points in making through net fares between the eastern and western territories described, except that where through fares of like class are published they shall be used in all cases in establishing through net fares. All fares used in establishing net fares must be lawfully on file with the Interstate Commerce Commission.”
    The said interterritorial military arrangement, dated December 28, 1916, and effective January 1, 1917, on page 4, contained the following stipulation:
    “ v. Party fares. — Method of constructing net fares by use of party fares. — For military traffic moving from territory east of Chicago, St. Louis, Memphis, Vicksburg, and New Orleans to territory west thereof, or vice versa, authorized party fares to and from the gateways named may be used in the construction of through net fares, in the understanding that the basing points will be Chicago, St. Louis, Memphis, Vicksburg, and New Orleans only.
    “Neither two or more party fares, nor a party fare and an individual fare east or west of the gateways named, may be combined in establishing a basing fare to or from the basing point. Any party fare used to or from the basing points must be authorized as one through, party fare to or from such basing points, as the case may be. A party fare or an individual fare published as one through fare to or from the basing points named may, however, be combined with authorized individual fares east or .west of such points in making through net fares between the eastern and western territories described, except that where through fares of like class are published they shall be used in all cases in establishing through net fares; all fares used in establishing net fares must be lawfully on file with the Interstate Commerce Commission.”
    III. Under date of April 7, 1917, E. L. Bevington, chairman of the railroad military committee, wrote to Quartermaster General of the Army as follows:
    
      “ Confirming my telegram of this date, as follows:
    “4 Yours fifth. Interested carriers.have concurred proposition permit Government combine party fares over' Shreveport, Louisiana, in establishing net fares between points in southeastern territory east of the Mississippi and south of the Ohio and Potomac Livers and points in Texas to and from which party fares are authorized to and- from Shreveport. This in accordance with proposition advanced you January thirteenth. Concession is made in understanding all limitations and restrictions applicable to the combinations over Vicksburg, New Orleans, and ■ other specified gateways under western and interterritorial military arrangements shall apply, and further that this concession on part of carriers- shall not establish a precedent. ' .This arrangement to take effect July first, nineteen sixteen, within territory defined and to continue during the period that such combinations are available under tariffs duly filed with Interstate Commerce Commission. Writing to-day fully specifying conditions this concession. Assume under circumstances no ruling comptrollers this connection necessary. Acknowledge.’ ■ .
    “ You are informed that this question was considered at conference of directly interested lines held in Houston, Texas, March 27 last, where the .recommendation .as quoted below was adopted, which recommendation has since been confirmed by all southwestern carriers interested:
    
      “ ‘ Becommended, that with the concurrence of other southwestern carriers interested, it is understood that the Government may combine party fares over Shreveport, La., in establishing net fares between points in southeastern territory east of the Mississippi and south of the Ohio and Potomac Bivers and points in Texas to and from which party fares are authorized to and from Shreveport. This concession not to be used as a precedent. In all other respects the combinations of party fares to be restricted to the gateways specifically authorized in the military arrangement — that is, Chicago, St. Louis, Memphis, Vicksburg, and New Orleans, on military trafile moving to. and from eastern and southeastern territories and St. Louis and Kansas City on military traffic moving within territory west of and including Chicago, St. Louis, Memphis, Vicksburg, and New Orleans.
    
      “ ‘ The combinations over Shreveport as herein authorized may be used beginning July 1, 1916, and may continue during the period that such combinations are available, under tariffs duly filed with the Interstate Commerce Commission.’
    “As stated in foregoing, this concession under which the Government is permitted to combine party fares over Shreveport, La., on business originating in territory east of the Mississippi and south of the Ohio and Potomac Bivers, and destined to Texas points, and vice versa, is not to establish a precedent. In other words, conditions of the western and interterritorial military arrangements as to the combinations of party fares are to be confined to Chicago, St. Louis, Memphis, Vicksburg, and New Orleans on trafile from eastern and southeastern territory to territory west of those gateways and vice versa, and within western territory the only combinations of party fares permissible are those over St. Louis and Kansas City, except as stated in the above recommendation with reference to Shreveport. Triple combinations either of party fares with party fares or party fares with individual fares not permissible.
    “ Combinations may be made over Shreveport beginning July 1, 1916, from the territory east of the Mississippi and south of the Ohio and Potomac Bivers to points in Texas and vice versa to and from which party fares are authorized to and from Shreveport and to continue during the period that such combinations are available under tariffs duly filed with the Interstate Commerce Commission.
    “ It is assumed that this will obviate the necessity of any decision of the Comptroller of the Treasury with reference to combinations over Vicksburg and Shreveport or over other points not now specifically named in the military arrangements and herein.
    
      “ Please acknowledge receipt and advise if satisfactory.”
    IV. The railroads of this country are divided into seven passenger territorial groups, in each of which there is á passenger association. These associations are: New England, Trunk Line, Central, .Southeastern, Southwestern, Western, and Transcontinental, each of which functions on all commercial and military matters within its particular territory. The chairmen of the said various passenger associations constitute the committee which handles or functions on all interterritorial business; that is, business moving from one territorial group into another, of which Mr. E. L. Bev-ington was chairman. The movements in question were from Washington, D. C., and Newport, Ky., located in southeastern territory to San Antonio, Tex., in southwestern territory, and were governed by the interterritorial military arrangements of 1916 and 1911.
    V. At the time the transactions referred to in these findings of fact occurred, there was in force an agreement, to which the plaintiff was a party, commonly lmown as the “ Passenger land grant equalization agreement,” between the carriers of the United States generally and the Government, which read as follows:
    “ For transportation of persons for whom the United States Government is lawfully entitled to reduced fares over land-grant roads, the carriers Avhose names are signed hereto, when movement is to be made under United States requests for transportation of the issue of the War Department, Navy Department, or Marine Corps, hereby agree, subject to the exceptions filed by each individual line forming part of a through route and subject also to the general exceptions (a, b, c, d, e, f, g, h, i, j, k, 1, m, n, o, p, q, and r) herein specifically stated to accept lowest net fare and lowest net excess-baggage rate lawfully available as derived, through deductions account land-grant distance, via a usually traveled route for military traffic, from a lawful fare filed with the Interstate Commerce Commission as applying from point of origin to destination via such route at time of movement.”
    VI. The Southeastern Joint Party Tariff K2, I. C. C. F-2660, in force at the time the service was performed, authorized the use of a party fare between Washington, D. C., and Vicksburg, Miss., and between Newport, Ky., and Vicksburg, Miss. It contained the folloAving stipulation on page 31:
    “ 33. Party fares to destinations or from points of origin not shown in this tariif will be made by adding the party fares shown in this tariif to the party fares shown in other tariffs as lawfully on file with the Interstate Commerce Commission, provided that if the party fare so made exceeds the party fare to or from a point beyond on the same through line as shown in this tariif the latter fare will apply. Party fares so made will apply via all routes authorized under this tariif to or from contiguous points of origin or of destination.”
    The Vicksburg, Shreveport & Pacific Kailway Company Party Circular No. 7077, I. C. C. No. 2142, authorized the use of a party fare between Vicksburg, Miss., and Shreveport, La. The Texas Louisiana Party Tariff 2,1. C. 0. 465, authorized the use of a party fare between San Antonio and Eagle Pass, Tex., and Shreveport, La.
    The gross party fare between Washington, D. C., and Vicksburg, Miss., Southeastern Party Tariif K2, I. C. C. 2660, Avas $21.35. The gross party fare between NeAvport, Ivy., and Vicksburg, Miss., same tariif, was $14.15. The gross party fares betAveen Shreveport, La., and Vicksburg, Miss., V. S. & P. Circular 7077, I. C. C. 2142, was $3.88. The gross party fare betAyeen Shreveport, La., and San Antonio, Tex., Texas-Louisiana Party TarifE No. 2, I. C. C. 465, Avas $8.50, and the gross party fare betAA^een Shreveport and Eagle Pass, Tex., same tariff, was $11.95.
    Adding the gross party fare from Washington to Vicksburg, $21.35, to the gross party fare from Vicksburg to Shreveport, $3.88, gives a gross party fare from Washington to Shreveport of $25.23, and with a combination on Shreveport of $8.50 gross fare from Shreveport to San Antonio, gives a gross party fare from Washington to San Antonio of $33.73.
    Adding the gross party fare from Newport to Vicksburg, $14.15, to the gross party fare from Vicksburg to Shreveport, $3.88, Avitli a combination on Shreveport of $8.50 gross party fare from Shreveport to San Antonio, gives a gross party fare of $26.53 from Newport to San Antonio, and Avith a combination on Shreveport of $11.95 gross party fare from Shreveport to Eagle Pass gives a gross party fare of $29.98 from Newport to Eagle Pass.
    The fare from Washington to San Antonio on June 20, 1916, with land-grant, deductions, was $28.25, and on November 3, 1916, the fare, with land-grant and 5 per cent military deduction, was $27.35. These are the dates applicable to the two movements from Washington to San Antonio, and the difference is due to 5 per cent military allowance on the movement in November.
    The net fare ‘from Newport to San Antonio was $21.15, and from Newport to Eagle Pass was $24.60 at the time of the said movements.
    VII. At different times during the years 1916 and 1917, beginning in June, 1916, and ending in December, 1917, the plaintiff and its connecting carriers transported over its respective lines, upon Government transportation requests, numerous movements of United States troops. For this sendee the plaintiff, as initial carrier, presented its bills, based on net per capita fares obtained by combinations only on the Avestern gateways specified, in the interterritorial arrangements of 1916 and 1917, to the proper disbursing officer. The bills so rendered, Nos. 32288, 32289, 32084, 34076, 32080. 33657, 33868, 32282, 34080, 33074, 32494, 32293, 33076, 50068, 34291, 33665, 50077, 36189, 50066, 50067, 36216, 34295, 50078, 36223, and 34078, except bills Nos. 32293, 33076, and 34295 were paid as presented in the sum of $289,774.89, of which amount $172,210.31 AAras, at different times, from No-Arember 17, 1916, to December 20, 1917, inclusiA^e, paid to plaintiff, and the balance, $117,564.58, Avas at different times, from February 11, 1918, to April 16, 1918, inclusive, paid to the Director General of Railroads and credited by him to plaintiff.
    General Order No. 17 is attached to these findings as Appendix A and made part of this finding by reference.
    VIII. The bill No. 32293 T/B. 20383 was rendered for $3,721.39 and upon refusal of the disbursing officer to pay it Avas restated at $3,705.94, a difference of $15.45, in Avhich amount it was paid and received by plaintiff without protest on June 12, 1917. Bill No. 33076 T/B 61787 was rendered for $7,782.97, based on a net per capita fare of $26.03, and upon refusal of the disbursing officer to pay it was restated at $7,343.44 by plaintiff, based on a net per capita fare of $24.56, in which amount it was paid on March 25, 1918, to the Director General of Railroads and received without protest. The plaintiff presented a supplemental bill No. 33076-A to the Auditor for the War Department for the difference between the net fares of $25.87, $7,785.13 and the net fares of $24.56, $7,343.44, a difference of $391.69, which was disallowed by the auditor on July 24, 1918, without protest by plaintiff. Bill No. 34295 T/R 354992, was rendered for $4,655.56, based on a net per capita fare of $25.58, and upon refusal by the disbursing officer to pay it plaintiff restated it at $4,469.92 based on a net per capita fare of $24.56, in which amount it was paid to the Director General of Railroads on April 1, 1918, and received by him without protest. The plaintiff filed a supplemental bill for the .amount dropped in the restatement, $185.64, with the auditor, who disallowed same on October 9, 1918, without protest from plaintiff.
    Bill No. 34078 (T/Rs 34460, 344543, 344347, and 344541) was rendered by plaintiff for $14,919.98 and was paid by the disbursing officer to the Director General of Railroads in full as presented- on April 16, 1918. On March 25, 1919, plaintiff presented a supplemental bill, No. 34078-A, to the auditor for $16,709.80, a difference of $1,839.82, which was disallowed by him without protest from plaintiff on April 23, 1919.
    IX. The Auditor for the War Department in auditing the accounts of said disbursing officer disallowed as over-payments by him of plaintiff’s said bills amounts aggregating $20,978.45, and these amounts were deducted at different times from March 12, 1920, to September 17, 1920, inclusive, from bills of the Railroad Administration by the auditor. Of the said deductions amounts aggregating $16,588.13 were obtained by routing so as to make combinations on points not authorized by the interterritorial military arrangements of 1916 and 1917. Deductions aggregating $1,780.89 were obtained by adding-the gross party fare from Washington, D. C., to Vicksburg, Miss., $21.35, authorized in the Southeastern Joint Party Tariff K2, I. C. C. F-2660, to the gross party fare from Vicksburg, Miss., to Shreveport, La., of $3.88, authorized by the Vicksburg, Shreveport & Pacific Railway Company Party Circular No. 7077, I. C. C. -2142, making a through gross party fare of $25.23 from Washington to Shreveport, and adding the gross party fare of $8.50 authorized by the Texas-Louisiana Party Tariff No. 2, I. C. C. 465, from Shreveport, La., to San Antonio, Tex., making a through gross party fare of $33.73 from Washington to San Antonio, and a net fare of $28.25 in Juné, 1916, and a net fare of $27.35 in November, 1916. By adding the gross party fare, $14.15, authorized by the Southeastern Joint Party Tariff K2, I. C. C. F — 2660, from Newport, Ky., to Vicksburg, Miss., to the gross party fare from Vicksburg, Miss., to Shreveport, La., of $3.88, authorized by the Vicksburg, Shreveport & Pacific Railway Company Party Circular No. 7077,1. C. C. 2142, making a gross party through fare from Newport to Shreveport of $18.03, and by adding the gross party fare of $8.50 from Shreveport to San Antonio, Tex., authorized by the Texas-Louisiana Party Tariff No. 2, I. C. C. 465, making a gross party fare of $26.35 from Newport to San Antonio, and a net party fare of $21.15, and adding the gross through party fare from Newport to Shreveport of $18.03 to the gross party fare of $11.95 from Shreveport to Eagle Pass, Tex., authorized by the same tariff, making a gross through party tariff of $29.98 from Newport to Eagle Pass and a net party fare of $24.60.
    X. The amount of the deductions by the auditor obtained by routing by way of Chattanooga, Tenn., Meridian, Miss., and Shreveport, La., an authorized and a usually traveled route for military traffic, on the basis of land-grant deductions and 5 per cent military allowance from first-class individual fares, was $2,609.43. The plaintiff based its net fares from Columbus and Cincinnati, Ohio, by a route through St. Louis, Mo., and Texarkana, Ark., to points in Texas; also an authorized and usually traveled route for military traffic, but with less land-grant mileage.
    The average mileage of the routes by which the troops were actually moved was greater than the average mileage of the routes by Avhich the fares'were computed by either the accounting officers or the plaintiff.
    XL The difference between the amount paid to plaintiff' by the Government on the basis of 100 per cent land-grant deduction for the transportation of the United States troops described in Finding YII and the amount to which it was-entitled on the basis of a 50 per cent land-grant deduction under the equalization agreement set out in Finding V and the act of October 6, 1917 (40 Stat. 361), is $2,208.55, which has not been paid in whole or in part to plaintiff.
    XII. Of the amount deducted by the auditor from Eail-road Administration bills at different times from March 12, 1920, to September 17, 1920, $20,978.45, the sum of $13.58 was refunded by plaintiff to the War Department on July 7, 1919, and the sum of $20,939.52 was charged back to plaintiff by the Eailroad Administration in December, 1921, through the account “Federal assets collected,” and $25.35 was charged back to plaintiff by the Eailroad Administration through the account “ Corporate transactions.”
    XIII. In December, 1921, the plaintiff paid the amount charged back to plaintiff through the account “Federal assets collected” ($20,939.52) into the “trustee fund” to credit of the Eailroad Administration, and charged the same on its books in a suspense account against the War-Department.
    The trustee account was created by General Order No. 68, issued February 24, 1920, to take effect at the termination of Federal control, at 12 o’clock midnight, February 29, 1920. By this order the different railroads that had been under Federal control were made trustees of the United States Eailroad Administration to collect all of its unpaid bills and to pay all of its outstanding liabilities and generally to wind up all of its unfinished transportation business. All Federal cash pertaining to the transportation business was turned over to the railroads to be carried in this account. Any moneys erroneously paid into the trustee account by deposit in the banks where such accounts were kept could be withdrawn by a railroad company making such deposits with the consent of the Director General of Eailroads.
    
      General Order No. 68 is attached to these findings as Appendix B and is made part of this finding by reference thereto.
    XIY. The sum of $25.35 deducted from a Eailroad Administration bill on August 14, 1918, on account of alleged overpayment by the disbursing officer of corporate bill before Federal control and charged back to the plaintiff in December, 1921, through the account “ Corporate transactions ” by the Eailroad Administration was paid to said Eailroad Administration by plaintiff in the final settlement of July 27, 1922, through said account “ Corporate transactions.”
    The act of February 28,1920 (41 Stat. 456, 457), provided for the termination of Federal control.
    On February 24, 1920, General Order No. 66, effective February 29, 1920, was issued by the United States Eail-road Administration for the purpose of outlining the method to be followed in the separation of the accounts of the Eailroad Administration and the different railroads under its control when the railroads should be returned to their owners, which provided among other things that:
    “Sec. 5. (a) * * * If during the period of Federal operations amounts representing oA^ercharge freight claims paid out of "Federal funds, affecting traffic, the revenues from which were included in corporation revenue or credited to it as lay-over revenue on the Federal books, oi amounts representing loss and damage claims paid out of Federal funds, chargeable to the period prior to Federal control, -were carried on the Federal books in suspense accounts pending adjristment thereof with other carrier corporations, or pending receipt of additional information wherewith to dispose of the amounts carried, and such amounts are carried in suspense account as of February 29, 1920, they shall be charged to the corporation. Such amounts shall on the Federal books be charged to the account ‘(Name of corporation) — Corporate transactions,’ and on the corporate books should be charged to an appropriate suspense account and credited to the account ‘ U. S. Government — Corporate transactions.’ ”
    General Order No. 66 is attached to these findings as Appendix C and is made part hereof by reference.
    
      XV. The material parts of the final settlement agreement of July 27, 1922, between the director general and the plaintiff read as follows:
    “ The said director general hereby acknowledges payment of the sum of one dollar ($1.00) by said companies, the receipt whereof is hereby acknowledged, in full satisfaction and dischai’ge of all claims, rights, and demands of every kind and character, 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 24th day of June, 1919; and the said companies, both jointly and severally, hereby acknowledge the return to and receipt by them of all the property and rights which they are entitled to, and further acknowledge that the director general has fully and completely complied with and settled 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:
    “ ‘ EXCEPTIONS
    “ ‘ 2. This settlement does not include or affect any moneys or assets of the director general turned over to the companies, or any of them, pursuant to General Order No. 68, |he account created by this order to be adjusted as though this agreement had not been made.’ ”
    XYI. On August 25,1920, a complete settlement was made between the War Department and the Director General of Railroads of all unsettled accounts for transportation furnished by the Railroad Administration to the War Department between January 1,1918, and March 1,1920, the period of Federal control of railroads, and the amount paid by the War Department to the Eailroad Administration in such settlement was $38,169,294.39.
    On August 26, 1920, the comptroller of the Eailroad Administration issued, with the approval of the Director Gen-. eral of Eailroads, accounting circular 152, which reads:
    “ To each carrier, the properties of which were under Federal control at the termination thereof at midnight, February £9, 19W:
    
    “A settlement has been made between the War Department and the director general for all unpaid charges for passenger and freight transportation service, including Pullman fares and demurrage charges, rendered by the director general.
    “Accounting officers are directed to close into an account styled ‘War Department transportation charges’ all unpaid accounts against the War Department carried in the Federal books covering such transportation service and to discontinue rendering Federal bills against the War Department for services of this nature.
    “The account ‘War Department transportation charges’ shall be closed into the administration ledger control account and reported as a special item on Form AC-512-A in the same manner as prescribed in Accounting Circular 82 for reporting other items transferred to the administration ledger control account. Eecord of the balance so transferred shall be kept in the Federal accounts in such detail that it may be readily audited by representatives of the Eail-road Administration.
    “ Special attention is directed to the fact that the settlement above referred to involves the War Department only, that it does not include amounts due for the construction of tracks, service at cantonments, etc., and does not include bills rendered in the Federal accounts for transportation service performed prior to Federal control.
    “ Unpaid bills carried in the Federal accounts against the War Department, for transportation service performed prior to Federal control, 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. Such charges against the corporation, when reported on settlement statement Form AC-510, shall be allocated to the quarter in which the corporation was originally credited with the amount, or bill was stated in the accounts.”
    XVII. In pursuance of the authority contained in section 1 of the act of March 21, 1918 (40 Statl 451-453), Itnown as the “Federal railroad control act,” the Director General of Eailroads, on June 24, 1919, entered into an agreement with the Baltimore & Ohio Eailroad Co. and its affiliated companies.
    A copy of the said agreement between the Director General of Eailroads and the Baltimore & Ohio Eailroad Company, dated June 24, 1919, is made part of this finding by reference thereto.
    The court decided that plaintiff was entitled to recover, in part.
    
      
       Appealed.
    
   MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT

1. The several items claimed, as set forth in Finding VIII, are not recoverable where the bills were rendered to disbursing officers and payments by him were received. See Oregon-Washington R. & N. Co., 255 U. S. 339; 54 C. Cls. 131; Baltimore & Ohio R. R. Co. case, 52 C. Cls. 468.

2. The deductions made by the auditor on account of combinations of fares, namely, $1,780.89 (Finding IX), were proper. The' military arrangements of 1916 and 1917 provided that any party fare used to or from basing points should be authorized as a through party fare. The Southeastern Joint Party Tariff K2 (Finding VI) provides methods for combination fares. The combinations were properly made on Vicksburg and Shreveport. See Norfolk Southern R. R. Co. case, 59 C. Cls. 517.

3. The auditor’s deductions, aggregating $16,588.13 (Finding IX), obtained by routing or making combinations on points not authorized by the interterritorial military arrangements were erroneous. See Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe R. R. Co. case, 256 U. S. 205.

4. The auditor’s routing of the movements and consequent land-grant deductions (Finding X), were authorized by the equalization agreement (Finding V).

5. The plaintiff is entitled to recover the item of $2,208.55 (Finding XI), because of the act of October 6, 1917 (40 Stat. 361).

6. The questions of payment of corporate bills to the Director General, the deductions by the auditor, and the subsequent settlement between the plaintiff and the Railroad Administration are settled by cases of Reading Company, ante, p. 131, Southern Ry. Co., ante, p. 156, and New York, New Haven & Hartford R. R. Co., ante, p. 174.  