
    THE UTICA, ITHACA AND ELMIRA RAILWAY COMPANY v. THE UNITED STATES.
    [No. 14610.
    Decided April 25, 1887.]
    The claimants carry mail matter beyond the terminus of their own route to Elmira, a place within the route of the Erie Railway Company, that company receiving pay therefor, the Post-Office Department having no knowledge of the fact until September 22, 1879. The Department then asks for information with the view to extending the claimant’s mail route to Elmira, but suggests letting the matter rest until the end of the present contract term. No answer is returned and the Department continues to pay the Erie Railway Company.
    I. When services are rendered to the Government without its knowledge or request, and where no benefit accrues, it must be held that they were voluntary, and that no contract upon them can be implied.
    II. Where a mail transportation contractor renders a service within the route of another, and allows the latter to receive pay therefor without objection, it is a case of estoppel, and the Government cannot be made to pay a second time.
    
      
      The Reporters’ statement of the case:
    The village of Horseheads is five and three-quarter miles east of Elmira. From 1878 to 1882 the railroad connecting Horseheads with Elmira was owned by the Erie Railway Company. During that period the Utica, Ithaca and Elmira Railway Company was a mail transportation contractor, whose route terminated at Horseheads. During the same period the Erie Railway was likewise a mail transportation contractor, whose route embraced the distance from Horseheads to Elmira. At the same time some contract relations existed between the two companies, the terms of which were not disclosed, but they related to the same railroad, and by virtue of them the Utica, Ithaca and Elmira Company continued its trains from Horse-heads to Elmira upon the track of the Erie Railway. From May 11, 1878, to June 30,1882, the Utica, Ithaca and Elmira Railway, instead off throwing of the mails at the end of its route for the Erie Railway Company to carry, carried them through to Elmira. For this service it sought to recover.
    There was no proof that the Post-Office Department knew that the claimant was carrying the mails beyond the terminus of its own route, that is to say, beyond Horseheads, until September 22,1879, when the following letter was sent:
    “ Elmira, N. Y., 22nd September, 1879.
    “The Hon. T. J. Brady,
    “ Second Ass’t P. 31. General, Washington :
    
    “ Sir : I beg to bring under your notice the claim for compensation of the Utica, Ithaca and Elmira Railway Co. for the conveyance of mails from Elmira to Horseheads and viceversa. In doing so it will be convenient that I should explain that our road proper only commences at Horseheads. As, however, we pay the Erie for the privilege of running over its road, we feel that we may fairly claim to be treated at your hands, in this particular instance, in the same way as if we ran the whole distance over our own roads.
    “ Therefore I respectfully submit for your consideration the claim for compensation for the daily mail service from Elmira to Ithaca and from Ithaca to Elmira, in lieu of the existing arrangement from Horseheads to Ithaca and vice versa only. It is right I should mention, for your information, that were our Ño. 4 train to terminate the journey at the end of our line proper, at Horseheads, instead of coming on to Elmira, we should be obliged to deposit all mails there. In that case correspondence from Syracuse and the various points along our roads for the West could not possibly connect at Elmira with. Erie No. 1. Even the correspondence for the city of Elmira would thereby be delayed for several hours, as, although the mails might be brought to Elmira later in the evening by the Northern Central train, they could only reach the post-office after closing hours. The inconvenience, therefore, of our No. 4 train stopping at Horseheads instead of continuing its journey, will, I am persuaded, be amply demonstrated by the foregoing explanations. When in addition thereto I add that we are called upon to pay the carrier at Elmira for the conveyance of the mails from and to the post-office, I venture to hope that I shall have succeeded in convincing you of the reasonableness of the claim I have the honor of submitting for your consideration.
    “Iam, sir, most obediently,
    UM. W. Serat,
    “ Treasurer.”
    To this letter the Post-Qffiee Department made the following reply:
    “ Nov. 8th, 1879.
    “Sir: I enclose a ‘Railroad Distance Circular/ in which please insert the distance from Elmira via Horseheads to Ithaca. This information is asked with the view of extending the service of your company from Horseheads to Elmira. The weight of the mails carried by your company between Horse-heads and Elmira has been included and paid for in the returns of the service of the Erie Railway. It will, of course, be necessary to reduce the pay of the Erie Rwy. Co., on account of these mails when payment is allowed your company for the same, unless some other course will be agreeable to you. I would therefore ask if it is your wish that you be paid to June 30,1881, the end of the contract term, the difference between the amount now allowed the Erie Railway Co. and what the service would justify as a separate and independent route, and let the matter be fully adjusted when the new contract term commences, which will be in July 1, 1881. This course would not make an important difference in the amount you would receive for the service, and would avoid any disturbance of the adjustment on the Erie Rwy., or possible controversy with that company.
    ‘‘Very respectfully, &c.,
    “ J. L. French,
    
      “Acting Second AssH P. M. Gen’l.
    
    “ M. W. Serat, Esq.,
    “ Treasurer Utica, Ithaca and Elmira
    
    “ Rwy. Co., Elmira, N. Y.”
    
    
      The claimants did not reply to this letter, but continued to carry the mails through to Elmira, and the Post-Office Department continued to pay the Erie Railway Company for the same service.
    
      Mr. Green B. Baum for the claimant:
    The exact point at issue is whether the claimant is entitled to pay for carrying the mails from Horseheads to Elmira in its own cars over the track of another railroad which had been hired by the claimant for the purpose of enabling it to run its trains on a continuous trip from Ithaca via Horseheads to El-mira. The claimant insists that as it performed the service for the Post-Office Department in carrying the mail from Ithaca to Elmira, that it is entitled to pay for the entire trip, although 5.79-100 miles thereof, from Horseheads to Elmira, was carried over the track of another railroad. The fact that another railroad company coming from another direction used that track for its trains and mails is no reason why claimant should not be paid for carrying the mails from Horseheads to Elmira over the same track.
    Where a railroad company iierforms service which is accepted by the United States it is to be presumed that compensation had been agreed to be paid, and the company is entitled to recover therefor. (Western Union B. B. Oo. v. The United States, 101 U. S. R., 549.)
    
      Mr. JS. M. Watson (with whom was the AssistantAttorney-General) for the defendants:
    The service rendered by claimant was to the Erie Railway Company and not to the defendants.
    When notified of the service by claimant under the Erie Company’s contract, the Post-Office Department promptly informed claimant of the condition of affairs and called upon claimant for such information as would enable it to see that justice was done between the principal and agent. By standing silently by, while the Erie road was paid for the service, the claimant forfeited, if it ever had, any claim against defendants on account of this service.
   Pee cueiam:

As to services rendered before fcke letter of September 22, 1879, the court is of the opinion that they were voluntary, being rendered without the request or knowledge of the Post-Office Department, and that as no benefit from them to the Government accrued, no contract upon them can be implied.

As to services rendered subsequent to that letter, the court is of the opinion that the claimant having stood by and allowed payment therefor to be made to the Brie Railway Company, must be deemed to have assented to the proposition set forth in the reply of the Postmaster-General, and is estopped from calling on the defendants to pay a second time.

The judgment of the court is that the petition be dismissed.  