
    CENTRAL OF GEORGIA RAILWAY COMPANY v. THE UNITED STATES CENTRAL OF GEORGIA RAILWAY COMPANY v. THE UNITED STATES SEABOARD AIR LINE RAILROAD COMPANY v. THE UNITED STATES ATLANTIC COAST LINE RAILROAD COMPANY v. THE UNITED STATES WINSTON-SALEM SOUTHBOUND RAILWAY COMPANY v. THE UNITED STATES NORFOLK AND WESTERN RAILWAY COMPANY v. THE UNITED STATES GULF, COLORADO AND SANTA FE RAILWAY COMPANY v. THE UNITED STATES SOUTHERN PACIFIC COMPANY v. THE UNITED STATES TEXAS AND NEW ORLEANS RAILROAD COMPANY v. THE UNITED STATES UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY v. THE UNITED STATES
    No. 49898
    No. 50009
    No. 49995
    No. 49784
    No. 49783
    No. 48855
    No. 49774
    No. 49812
    No. 49866
    No. 49885
    [Decided January 8, 1952]
    
      The attorneys for the respective plaintiffs in the above cases were as follows:
    In No. 49898, Mr. Julian G. Siffle; Mr. A. R. Lawton was on the brief.
    In No. 50009, Mr. Julian G. Siffle; Mr. A. R. Lawton was on the brief.
    In No. 49995, Mr. Frank, J. Wideman.
    
    In No. 49784, Mr. Robert R. Faulkner; Mr. G. O. Howell was on the brief.
    In No. 49783, Mr. Robert R. Faulkner; Mr. G. O. Howell was on the brief.
    In No. 48855, Mr. Lawrence Gake.
    
    In No. 49774, Mr. Lawrence Gake.
    
    In No. 49812, Mr. Lawrence Gake.
    
    In No. 49866, Mr. Lawrence Gake.
    
    In No. 49885, Mr. Lawrence Gake.
    
    
      Messrs. S. R. Gamer and Marvin G. Taylor, with whom was Mr. Assistant Attorney General Holmes Baldridge, for defendant. Mr. L. R. Mehlinger was on the briefs.
   Following the decision in Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railroad v. The United States, ante, p. 467, and the opinions referred to therein involving the same issues (117 C. Cls. 514; 121 C. Cls. 463), on the motions of the respective plaintiffs for summary judgment, the following per cumam opinion was filed January 9, 1952:

The same pleadings and the same issue are presented here as in the case of Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railway Company v. United States, No. 49759, this day decided. For the reasons stated in that case, plaintiffs’ motions for summary judgment are granted, and defendant’s counterclaims dismissed.

Entry of judgment is suspended awaiting a report from the General Accounting Office showing the amounts due plaintiffs in accordance with this opinion.

It is so ordered.  