
    JAMES A. BAKER, RECEIVER OF THE INTERNATIONAL & GREAT NORTHERN RAILWAY CO., v. THE UNITED STATES
    [No. B-176.
    Decided June 1, 1925]
    
      On the Proofs
    
    
      Dent Act; implied contract; spur to warehouses; voluntary aet.— See Baker, Receiver, etc., v. United States, ante, p. 887.
    
      The Reporter’s statement of the case:
    
      Mr. Glaudian B. Northrup for the plaintiff. Mr. Samuel B. Dabney was on the brief.
    
      Mr. Edwin S. McCrary, with whom was Mr. Assistant Attorney General Kerman J. Galloway, for the defendant.
    The following are the facts as found by the court:
    I. At the times named in the petition the plaintiff, James A. Baker, was and still is receiver of the International and Great Northern Railway Company, duly appointed by the District Court of the United States for the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division, in the case of the Central Trust Co. of New York v. International amd Great Northern Railway Co. et al., and as such receiver operated a system of railroads engaged in interstate commerce, transporting freight and passengers over such system to and from San Antonio, State of Texas, and other points.
    II. On or about July 15, 1917, Capt. Herbert W. Hard-man, of the United States Army, was quartermaster in charge of the aviation field near San Antonio, in the State of Texas, known as Kelly Field No. 1, and all other units of said Kelly Field, and was acting under authority, directions, and instructions of the Secretary of War of the United States and within the scope of his duties and authority.
    III. On or about July 15, 1917, Captain Hardman had certain convgrsations with an agent of the plaintiff with regard to constructing a spur track from the main line of the International and Great Northern Railway to a group of warehouses situate on or near an aviation field near San Antonio, Tex., known as Kelly Field No. 1. The agent of the plaintiff and Captain Hardman mutually agreed that the building of this, spur track would be an economy for the plaintiff and would better serve the Government; Whereupon the plaintiff of its own accord constructed the said spur track, which was 1,215 feet long, and was built wholly upon the plaintiff’s right of way, and was used by the plaintiff for the transportation of United States Government material and supplies to and from said aviation field. This track is still in place and is used to serve the warehouses to which it was built, and is sometimes used by the plaintiff for the storage of cars, and is wholly controlled by the plaintiff.
    IV. No switching charges have been made by plaintiff for the transportation of Government freight over this spur track. No remuneration has been received therefor except the benefit of additional freight business secured by plaintiff because of the operation of this spur track.
    Y. The cost to the plaintiff of constructing this spur track was the sum of $2,304.21.
    'The court decided that plaintiff was not entitled to recover.
   memorándum: by the court

This case is decided upon the principles and authorities set out in Balter, Receiver, v. United States, No. B-156, decided this day, and in Baker, Receiver, v. United States, No. B-158, decided this day, ante, pp. 887 and 890.

Graham, Judge, took no part in the decision of this case.  