
    SOUTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY v. THE UNITED STATES
    
    [No. B-352.
    Decided February 21, 1925]
    
      On the Proofs
    
    
      Statute of imitations; Transportation Act.- — See Schaff, Receiver, case, 59 C. Cis. 318.
    
      Railroad rates; agreement; free baggage. — See Missouri Pacific R. R. case, 56 O. Cis. 341.
    
      The Reporter's statement of the case:
    
      Mr. Spencer Gordon for; the plaintiff. Covington, Burl-ing <$> Rublee were on the briefs.
    
      Mr. Lisle A. Smith, with whom was Mr. Assistant Attorney General Robert H. Lovett, for the defendant.
    The following are the facts as found by the conrt:
    I. The plaintiff is a corporation duly incorporated under the laws of the State of Virginia. At the times of the different transactions hereinafter set forth the plaintiff operated, and still continues to operate, a system of railways in the State of Virginia and other States, doing business as a carrier of passengers and freight for hire and reward under tariffs duly published and filed with the Interstate Commerce Commission, as required by law.
    II. When the troops and military impedimenta hereinafter described were transported there were in force on all the lines which furnished such transportation special baggage tariffs which provided the terms and conditions under which associated travelers traveling on one ticket might become entitled to a baggage car free for the transportation of certain of their effects at the rate of one baggage car free to each group of (generally) 25 passengers paying full fares.
    III. In November, 1916, and September, 1911, the plaintiff and its connecting carriers transported over its lines to points on plaintiff’s lines, upon Government bills of lading, at the request of the proper officers of the War Department, certain property belonging to the United States, known as military impedimenta, accompanying movements of United States troops traveling on Government transportation requests, and the property in question was transported in freight cars.
    IV. For the transportation described in Finding III the plaintiff, as the last carrier, presented its bill No. 578, covered by bill of lading No. 6651, on November 27, 1916, for $6,985.26, correctly computed on the basis of freight service, to the proper disbursing officer for payment, who on July 17, 1917, returned said bill for restatement so as to allow one baggage car free for every 25 men in the troop movement. The plaintiff refused to do so, and on August 19, 1918, the Auditor for the War Department disallowed the entire bill on the ground that the military impedimenta in question should have been transported free at the rate of one baggage car for every 25 men. The plaintiff protested against this settlement.
    In March, 1918, the plaintiff presented its bill No. 76 (bills of lading Nos. 58, 60, 61, 62, and 64) to the disbursing .officer for $3,663.83. Plaintiff afterwards erroneously restated said bill as 76-A for $2,852.41, and later correctly restated said bill No. 76 as $3,390.53. The plaintiff refused to restate said bill so as to allow one baggage car free for every 25 men in the troop movement. On September 20, 1920, the auditor disallowed the entire bill on the ground that the impedimenta should have been transported free at the rate of one baggage car for every 25 men in the troop movement. The plaintiff appealed to the comptroller,. who, on November 18,1920, affirmed the disallowance of the auditor, in accordance with previous rulings by him.
    The total disallowances amounted to $10,375.79.
    V. The Quartermaster General recognized military impedimenta as freight, as shown by the Manual for the Quar-. termaster Corps issued in 1916 (paragraphs 3494, 3497, 3498, and 3509), in force when the said property was transported as aforesaid.
    VI. There were certain agreements in force between the United States and said carriers when the military impedimenta in question was transported, which provided that the applicable fares under the arrangement between them were the lawful commercial fares as on file with the Interstate Commerce Commission from starting point to destination at the time of movement, less lawful land-grant deductions, properly established, and less a further deduction of 5 per cent known as the military allowance. In connection with the reduction to the Government of commercial fares was the following provision in the agreement of 1916:
    “ One hundred and fifty (150) pounds of personal baggage, consisting only of personal effects of officers and men properly checkable as baggage under the terms of Southeastern Joint Baggage Tariff No. 5, supplements thereto or reissues thereof, will be transported without charge for one person, but this does not include company, battalion, regimental, or Government property. Personal baggage, as thus defined, in excess of one hundred and fifty (150) pounds per capita, when provision for the transportation of same is specifically made in United States Army, United States Navy, or United States Marine Corps transportation requests, will be charged for at regular excess-baggage rates less lawful land-grant deductions.”
    The provisions in agreement of 1917 read:
    “(1) One hundred and fifty (150) pounds of personal effects, properly checkable as baggage, under the tariff of the initial carrier, will be transported without charge for each person. Personal baggage in excess of the free allowance stated when provision for the transportation of the excess baggage is specially made in United States Army, Navy, or Marine Corps transportation requests and is paid for by the United States Government, will be charged for at the regular excess-baggage rate, based upon the net individual fare. When provision is not made in transportation request for transportation of excess baggage, collection will be made from the traveler at the regular individual commercial rate for weight in excess of the free allowance stated. Excess-baggage charges will not be subject to allowances applicable in connection with the fares for tickets under this arrangement. Baggage regulations in other respects than above will be in accordance with the tariff of the initial carrier checking the baggage in each case.
    “(2) Company, battalion, regimental, or Government property is not included in the above.”
    
      The court decided that plaintiff was entitled to recover.
    
      
       Appealed.
    
   MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT

The facts of the case are not in dispute. The defendant raises a question of limitation because of the act of June 7, 1924, 43 Stat. 633, but the suit was then pending. The case is controlled by Missouri Pacific R. R. case, 56 C. Cls. 341.  