
    UNION TRANSFER COMPANY’S CASE. THE UNION TRANSFER COMPANY v. THE UNITED STATES.
    [No. 19375.
    Decided April 8, 1901.]
    
      On the Proofs.
    
    The contract is for “covered regulation wagon mail-messenger, transfer, and mail-station service’’ in Philadelphia, and for “ all new or additional service of said kinds.” At the time only four mail stations exist in the city. Subsequently the Post-Office authorities change the system and establish 17 “receiving stations” which are not “mail stations, ’ ’ and compel the contractor to carry mail matter from them to the central office and to the railroad depots. They also establish 14 subpost-offices, from which and to which the contractor is compelled to carry mail matter. Previous to the contract, mail matter was carried to the post-offices by letter carriers and by special messengers.
    I.The court adheres to the decision in Woolverton’s Case (34 0. 01s., 247), that a new system of “ receiving stations ’ ’ is not ‘ ‘ new or additional ’ ’ “transfer and mail-station service” within the intent of a contract for the latter, but is extra service for which the contractor should recover.
    II.Where a contract includes “new or additional sendee” of the “kinds” described therein, to be performed without additional compensation, it means only service which increases the volume of the kind of service specified.
    III. Though the number of “branchpost-offices” was greatly increased, viz, from 4 to 12, the service for them must be regarded as additional, and not as extra.
    IV. A contractor who is compelled to perform extra service must perform it in the most expeditious and economical manner. A mail-messenger contractor must include new stations in existing routes, or circuits, if he can.
    V.The distinction to be made between the “receiving stations” in this case and “Station 0" in Woolverton’s stated.
    
      The Reporters' statement of the case:
    The following are the facts of the case as found by the court:
    I. On the 15th day of September, 1888, the Postmaster-General caused to be published an advertisement inviting proposals for the performance of the mail-messenger, transfer, and mail-station service in the city of Philadelphia, on mail route known as No. 9206, for the period from the 1st of J uly, 1889, to the 30th of June, 1893, as shown in Exhibit A of the petition.
    •II. The claimant submitted a bid, accompanied by the required bond and cash deposit, for the performance of the services described in said advertisement applicable to Philadelphia, which was accepted bjr defendants, and claimant •entered into the contract, as shown in Exhibit B of petition.
    III. During said contract term claimant performed the services specifically described in the advertisement; also all service that arose by reason of the increased tonnage of the mails from the natural growth of the service, by reason of .any changes of the situation of branch post-offices, railway stations, or steamboat landings, or the establishment of other branch post-offices than those existing at the date of the contract, rendered necessary by reason of the increase of the service, which new or additional service required additional trips and additional horses, wagons, and drivers; and in addition thereto claimant performed, under protest, as required by defendants, the service hereinafter set forth, which was not •due either to the natural increase of the postal matter or the increased tonnage of the mails, but which became necessary by the establishment of places to receive mail matter and from which claimant was required to transport it to its proper •destination.
    IV. At the time of the advertisement and contract it was, and had been for many years before, the system of the Post-Office Department to bring all the mail matter to the branch post-offices and the main post-office by means of letter carriers and special messengers, under the operation of the ‘ ‘ f ree-delivery system, ” and paid for out of the appropriation for that service, and the contract for the service classified as the “covered regulation wagon mail-messenger service ” related only to the transportation of the mails between four branch post-offices, the main post-office, and said office and the railroad stations or other points of shipment. The mails so collected under this system were collected by employees of the Post-Office Department, either by letter carriers or collectors, or in what was known as the “van service,” and brought to the branch or main post-office, where the claimant’s service, the covered regulation wagon service, first took charge of it. Tbe van service was also a part of tbe “ free-delivery system,” paid for out of that appropriation, and was never treated as apart of tbe “ covered regulation wagon service.”
    Y. At tbe date of tbe advertisement and the time of executing tbe contract the mail-station service consisted in tbe transportation of tbe mails between tbe main post-office and four branch post-offices, lettered B, E, F, and G, and said four offices comprised all the branch post-offices connected with tbe covered-wagon service that bad been established up to that time.
    VI. At tbe date of tbe advertisement and contract there existed in the city of Philadelphia a contract between the the Postmaster-General and Henry E. Biekley for the performance of the-so-called “van service,” designated as the “ letter-carrier wagon service,” at an annual charge of $18,089.40, for the transportation of the United States mail and carriers from the main post-office to various parts of the city and the return of the carriers with the mail from said several parts of the city to the main post-office, and under said system all mail matter for transportation out of said city was assembled at the main post-office (except such amounts as were brought to said four branch post-offices) before mentioned, and the carriers’ mail was also delivered to the carriers at the main office, and they, with the mail, were carried to various parts of the city.
    VII. The claimant’s superintendent, in accordance with the instructions to bidders and before submitting its bid, called at the post-office at Philadelphia for “information in regard to the service (advertised for) and its requirements,” and was informed by the superintendent of mails, who had charge of said service, as to the proportional increase of service heretofore, but no suggestion was made to claimant’s superintendent and no inquiry was made by him as to any proposed change of system, nor was any known to said superintendent of mails at the time or contemplated by the Post-Office Department. The superintendent of mails gave the superintendent of the company the information that he got from the previous service in regard to the proportion of increase, which was that he supposed there would be the usual increase during the term.
    
      YIII. After the contract had been in operation for nearly a year, and mail had been carried on the lines that had existed with respect to the mail transportation in the city of Philadelphia, the Postmaster-General determined on a change, and established receiving stations and substations at various points in the city, where mail matter could be deposited for dispatch, and also to do away with the van service and -establish in its place full stations or branch post-offices, where mail could be received as well as dispatched. Under this change the Postmaster-General from time to time during the contract period established seventeen stations called receiving stations, five stations called substations which were subsequently made full stations, and eight full stations or branch post-offices, aggregating thirty additional places, to which he required the claimant to make trips, and discontinued the van service by reason of said change of system.
    IX. From the time of the establishment of each of the said seventeen receiving stations the defendants required the claimant to carry from said several receiving stations to the main post-office the mail so accumulated at said receiving stations, and to carry empty mail bags or other supplies to said several receiving stations, but no mail was carried to them, nor was any mail delivered to the public from them except as hereafter shown as to No. 11. In accordance with said several orders, and under written protest in each case, the claimant performed the service aforesaid at each of said receiving-stations, and in so doing made circuit trips in the collection of mail and distribution of mail supplies which in the aggregate mileage amount to 34,202 miles, and which was reasonably worth the sum of 25 cents per mile, making the sum of §8,550. Said stations were numbered from 1 to 17. In collecting the mail at and carrying supplies to No. 11 the claimant, counting by the circuit, traveled 6,684 miles, which, being deducted from 34,202 miles, leaves 27,518, making, at-the rate of 25 cents per mile, §6,879.
    Station No. 11 was a receiving station for Station G, which was a branch post-office, and occupied a separate room in a small building. Two institutions were situated near the station, and received their mail there. Also a few persons living- near this station, but outside the limits of the free-•delivery district, received their mail at this station if they requested that it should be sent there for them. The mail for this station was brought twice a day from Station G, the pouch being about half full each time. Rather more mail came to this station for delivery than was received by it for transmission to Station G. Mail matter was registered at this station, and the stamps on third and fourth class matter ■and on registered matter received at this station were canceled there. From four of these receiving stations the mails were conveyed by persons in the employ of the claimant to the nearest railroad stations, and thence to the terminal ■stations by train. Said service is not included in the above .and was reasonably worth the sum of $930.
    From receiving station No. 6 the mail was taken by the ■agent of the railroad company at request of claimant. In consideration of the business relations between the railroad •company and the claimant no charge was made by the railroad company. The services were reasonably worth $544.
    X. From the establishment of the substations the claimant was required by defendants -to carry the mail there accumulated to the main post-office, and to carry empty mail bags .and postal supplies from the main office to said substations, but no mail was taken to them or delivered from them to the public, and in accordance with said several orders, and under written protest in each case, the claimant performed the service of carrying the mail from such stations to its proper destina-. tion and carried supplies to such stations.
    All of said stations occupied rooms or floors of buildings, .and several persons were employed in each. No permanent record was kept of the mail matter, but the business of stamps and money orders was large, amounting to over $100,000 per year. During the period covered by the contract the claimant, in carrying the mail to and from such stations, and in carrying supplies to said stations in making circuit trips in such collection and delivery, made a mileage with its wagons •of 111,854 miles, which, at a reasonable compensation, was worth the sum of 25 cents per mile, amounting to the sum of $21,963.50. The claimant during the period of said contract performed service at certain other stations which were full branch post-offices, and the mileage computed in circuit trips for such service amounts in the aggregate to 33,640 miles, worth 25 cents per mile, amounting to the sum of $8,410. Said branch post-offices are those mentioned in finding Tin, and were established after the claimant had entered upon the performance of the contract as aforesaid.
    XI. During the contract term the Post-Office Department, in the transportation and distribution of its mails in the city of Philadelphia, to supersede and do away with the “van service,” so called by the Postmaster-General, established a designated mail-messenger service known as route No. 210607, and established on said route branch post-offices or mail stations known and designated as (1) Eighteenth and Chestnut streets, (2) Fairmount, (3) Columbia, (4) Spring Garden, (5) Fairhill, (6) Kensington, (7) Southwest, and (8) Passyunk stations, and advertised for proposals to perform the mail-station service on said route, and on or about August 23,1892, designated one B. F. Bonham as mail messenger thereon, and, as the said branch post-offices above mentioned wére opened, discontinued the van service. Said branch post-offices were not designated as a part of route No. 9206.
    Against the protest of the claimant the Postmaster-General ordered and required the claimant to carry certain mails from some of the said branch post-offices so established on route No. 210607 to certain railroad depots.
    The amount of the service performed by claimant upon the basis of circuit mileage at the rate of 25 cents per mile amounts to the sum of $4,750.80.
    XII. The claimant was not required to carry any mail between any of the postal stations which were full branch post-offices and the central post-office, such carriage of mail being done by another party, under another contract, No. 210607. On January 23,1893, the claimant was designated to perform the services called for by that contract until June 30, 1893, for a consideration of $8,500. All the mail carried between the postal stations of the character aforesaid, named in finding x, and railroad stations, was railroad mail, i. e., mail to and from points outside the city of Philadelphia, and which did not pass through the central post-office.
    The amount allowed the claimant for such service was reasonable compensation.
    
      XIII. During the contract term and at the dates herein.ai'ter set forth the Postmaster-General established three full .stations,' designated as West Park, Paschallville, and Brides-burg stations, to which there was no covered regulation wagon ■service to or from the main post-office, but the mail ivas exchanged between them and the main office by means of foot messengers from West Park to the Fifty-second street station •of the Pennsylvania Railroad, thence bjT the Pennsylvania Railroad to Broad Street station of the Pennsylvania Railroad, and thence to main post-office by claimant’s wagons; from Paschallville to the Paschal station of the Philadelphia, Wilmington .and Baltimore Railroad Company by foot passenger, thence by said railroad to Broad Street station, and thence to the main post-office by claimant’s wagons; from Bridesburg to Bridesburg station of the Pennsylvania Railroad by foot messenger, thence by railroad to Broad Street station, thence by claimant’s wagons to the main post-office, and returned by the .same means. That the Postmaster-General, against the protest of claimant, ordered and required the claimant to furnish three foot messengers, one for service at West Park, one at Paschallville, and one at Bridesburg, which service aggregated the number of trips set forth in the following schedule, and was reasonably worth the prices charged thereon:
    Location. From and to— Date opened. Date closed. 4 West Parle. Paschall-ville. Bridesburg 52d and Master sts. Paschall - ville. 4744 Richmond st. 52d St. station, P. R. R. Paschal station, P.W. and B. Bridesburg station, P. R. R. March 1,1890 Apr. 23,1890 Oct. 14,1890 June 30,1893 June 30,1893 June 30,1893 6,198 5,940 6,116 .6 .20 .20 2. ! .50 81,239.60 1,188.00 3,058.60 18,254 5,485.60
    
      Mr. John G. Fay for the claimant. Messrs. Fay cmd Fvt-•nam were on the brief. *
    
      Mr. Charles G. Binney (with whom was Mr. Assistant Attorney-General Fradt) for the defendants.
   Weldon, J.,

delivered the opinion of the court:

In this proceeding the claimant seeks to recover compensation for the performance of certain service rendered by it for the defendants, incident to the execution of a contract made on the 10th day of January, 1889, between it and the defendants, for covered regulation wagon mail-messenger service, transfer, and mail-messenger service in the city of Philadelphia, Pa.

The contract was for the term of four years commencing on the 1st day of July, 1889, and terminating on the 30th of June, 1893.

It, among other matters, provides:

“ Witnesseth, That whereas, Union Transfer Co., Chas. E. Pugh, pres’t, has been accepted as contractor for transporting the mails on route No. 9206, being the covered regulation wagon mail-messenger, transfer, and mail-station service at the city of Philadelphia, Pa., under an advertisement issued by the Postmaster-General on the 15th day of September, 1888, for such service, and which advertisement is herewith referred to and made by such reference a part of this contract, and all new or additional service of said kinds which may at any time during the term of this contract be required in said city, at twenty-nine thousand nine hundred and nine-four and xPo dollars per year, for and during the term beginning the first clay of July, 1889, and ending June 30, 1893.”

The claimant entered upon the performance of the agreement, and continued to perform the service until the end of the term, and for what it conceives to be the service contemplated by the contract no claim is made; but it is alleged that it was compelled, and did perform a large and valuable service in connection with the mails which is not provided for by the terms of the agreement and advertisement, and which in contemplation of the parties was not intended to be performed by the claimant.

It is alleged that at the time of making the contract but four mail stations existed in the city of Philadelphia; that for these mail stations the claimant performed all the service required; but for a considerable period of the contract the claimant was required and did perform a large amount of service beyond the service incident to the mail stations existing; that the defendants changed the system in the collection of the mails and by that change established receiving stations which were not mail stations, and required the claimant to carry mail received at such stations to the central office, and. thence to the depots; that such stations were not branch post-offices and not designated as such and did not come within the contract; that during the contract seventeen stations of that kind were established, from which the claimant was required to carry the mails and to which it was required to carry supplies and mail bags, and for such service the claimant charges, the sum of $24,805.95.

The claimant further alleges, that in pursuance of such change of policy the defendants during the time of the contract established fourteen places called subpost-offices for the receipt of mail matter, to which and from which it was compelled to perform a large amount of service not embraced in the contract, and for which it charges the sum of $44,658.90, making in the aggregate the sum of $69,464.85, and for that sum this suit was brought. The claimant at the time it was ordered to perform the alleged service protested against the right of the defendants to require such service, but proceeded to perform it expecting to demand compensation for such performance.

To the claim thus presented the defendants insist that a large portion of the alleged extra service comes within the contract, and to the part not coming within the contract the claimant is entitled to recover much less than the sum charged.

The legal controversy, so far as the right to recover for the service in item of $44,658.90, arises upon the construction of the contract in what is meant by the terms “and all new or additional service of said kinds which may at any time during-the term of this contract be required in said city.” It is insisted by the defendants that all of the service embraced in said item of $44,658.90 coinés within that clause of the contract and advertisement which provides for “new and additional service.” As to the receiving stations the main contention is as to the basis on which the computation of compensation shall be calculated. It is insisted by the claimant that it is entitled to calculate the distance in the collection of mails from the general post-office to each of the stations and thence back to the post-office, while the defendants contend that the compensation for both services shall be calculated upon th e circuit travel which was made by the wagons of the claimant to and from the genera], post-office in the collection of the mails left at the receiving stations and substations.

The findings show that in about eight months from the time the claimant entered upon the performance of the contract a very important change was made by the defendants in the manner of collecting the mails in the city of Philadelphia; and instead of' having the mail deposited in four branch offices, they from time to time established, during the term of the contract period, seventeen receiving stations, five receiving stations called substations, which were afterwards' made full stations, and eight full stations or branch post-offices, to which and from which the claimant was required to make trips in the collection of the mail and in the distribution of mail supplies.

At the time the contract was made, and for many-years prior thereto, the system of the Post-Office Department was to bring the mail to the branch post-office and the main office by means of letter carriers and special messengers under the free-delivery system, and the “covered regulation wagon mail-messenger service” related to the transportation of mail from the branch offices and the main post-office.

It is shown by the findings that the claimant’s superintendent called at the post-office in Philadelphia, in accordance with instructions to bidders, before submitting the bid of the company, for information in regard to the service and its requirements, and was in substance informed by the superintendent of mails ás to the proportionate increase of the service. No suggestion was made to him by such mail superintendent of any change of system, and no inquiry was made by the superintendent of the claimant as to any change in the system. The information communicated by the superintendent of mails was in substance information founded on the previous service in regard to the proportional increase of service — that he supposed there would be .the usual increase during the term.

The question of the liability of the defendants for service under a somewhat similar contract was presented in the case of Knox Ex. v. United States (30 C. Cls. R., 59), in which it is in substance decided that the Revised Statutes, 3871, which authorizes the establishment of branch post-offices “for the receipt and delivery of mail” does not authorize the Department to designate a shop as a branch post-office which is not used for that purpose. The mere designation of the Postmaster-General does not confer upon the place the legal quality of a branch post-office or mail station, unless the place or point designated is used for the purpose contemplated by the statute.

The statute provides: “The Postmaster-General, when the public convenience requires it, may establish within anj*- post-office delivery one or more branch offices for the receipt and delivery of mail matter and the sale of stamps and envelopes, and shall prescribe the rules and regulations for .the government thereof, but no letter shall be sent for delivery at any branch office contrary to the request of the party to whom it is addressed. ”

In the case of Woolverton (31 C. Cls. R., 247), in which the suit was founded upon a contract for “covered regulation mail-messenger service,” the claimant recovered a judgment for service performed to and from the substations upon the theory that such service did not come within the contract providing for service to and from “branch post-offices” or “mail stations.” Neither of those cases was appealed, and the law rests upon the decision of this court. While the defendants are contesting only the service to and from substations, they do not fully concede the law of the Woolverton case. The court in the Knox and Woolverton cases held that by the language of the Department “mail stations” and “branch post-offices” mean the same thing. In the Woolverton case it is said:

“A ‘substation’ is not to be confounded with a ‘branch posh-office.’ These ‘ substations ’ are found in cigar shops, apothecary shops, and other similar places of usual public resort, and only receive mail. They distribute none. In effect they differ not at all from the ordinary lamp-post box— the box is put ‘ indoors ’ instead of remaining ‘ out of doors; ’ that is all the difference. The collection from the lamp-post boxes (the street boxes) had always been made by letter carriers and had not been made by the ‘ covered regulation mail-messenger service,’ which plaintiff contracted to perform. At the time this contract was made ‘ mail stations ’ were understood to be ‘ branch post-offices.’ No other mail stations were tben known. This court has said (Knox v. United States, 30 C. Cls. R., 77): ‘ Branch offices have come to be called in departmental language “ mail stations ” and to be designated by letters of the alphabet.’ In fact, ‘branch post-office’ and ‘ mail station ’ meant the same thing when this contract was made.
*x* -x- * *x- *
“The purpose of the ‘substations’ is set forth in the findings. It will be seen that they differed in no respect from the ordinary street letter boxes. It is the duty of the letter carriers to collect from these boxes. The fact that- the boxes are inside an inn, an apothecary shop, or a telegraph office, or fastened to a telegraph pole instead of fastened to a lamppost, does not change their character. Plaintiff was under no obligation, through his contract, to perform this service, and should recover the reasonable value of the service as extra.”

Following the line of the Woolverton case as to the receiving stations (as to which there is no substantial contention, except as to the proper basis of compensation), we determine ■as to those stations that the plaintiff has a right to recover.

The increase of the service from a period of about eight. months from the time the contract went into operation was so large and material it would be unjust to claimant to say that such service was contemplated by the parties, and to justify the Department in making an increase of that magnitude the service must be brought clearly within the description of the •service specified in the agreement. New and additional service must be such service as only increases the volume of the •service specified in the contract.

Before and at the time of the making of the agreement the collection and distribution of mail and mail matter, as shown by the findings, was made by letter carriers, and while the Department had the right to establish branch offices, dependent upon the necessities of the service, it had no right to establish a new sj'stem and require the claimant to perform the service of collecting mail and distribution of mail matter as contradistinguished from the service of carrying mail and mail matter as incident to a branch office.

Assuming by the construction of the contract that the service as to the receiving stations does not come within the obligation of the claimant as measured by the agreement, but is extra thereto, it became and was the duty of the claimant to perform the service in the most expeditious manner and economical mode, which would be by the system of circuit travel and not by the mode of going to each receiving station and thence back to the post-office, but to include as many stations in one trip as practicable. Taking that basis -as the proper one on which to compute the compensation, the findings show that the .claimant was compelled in the performance of the service to travel with his wagons the distance of 27,518 miles, and that such service was worth at the rate of 25 cents, per mile, making an aggregate of $6,879.

From the allowance thus made for receiving stations, as set forth in finding ix, we exclude the travel to and from station No. 11, for the reason that mail was delivered from that station and it therefore does not come within the law as applicable to receiving stations. The amount traveled by the claimant in the performance of the service at that station amounted to 6,684 miles.

In finding ix it is shown that from some of the receiving-stations mails were convejmd by foot messengers in the employ of the claimant, and that such service was reasonably worth the sum of $930, and for that amount an allowance is made, and also for services at station 6, which were reasonably worth $544.

In finding x it is shown that for certain substations from which no mail was delivered the claimant carried the mail and delivered postal supplies amounting in the aggregate to 111,854 miles, which was reasonably worth the sum of 25 cents per mile computed on the basis of circuit travel, and for that an allowance is made of $27,963.

In finding x it is shown that services were performed by the claimant to and from certain stations, which were full branch post-offices, aggregating the sum of 33,640 miles — said branch offices being the offices described in finding vm — which mileage being calculated at the rate of 25 cents per mile amounts to the sum of $8,205. For this no allowance is made.

In the Woolverton case (supra) there is one station designated as “O” for which no allowance was made to the claimant, and it is insisted that the substations claimed for in this proceeding come within the classification of “O.” It is stated in the opinion as to “O” that it did not substantially differ from other branch post-offices, and also that in carrying the mails from Station “O,” as the plaintiff did, instead of carrying it from a branch post-office or the general post-office, he was the gainer by the distance being shorter.

It is true that, in the court’s opinion, it is said that Station “0” did not substantially differ from other branch post-offices, but in connection with that statement it is said that Station “O” appears to have been an advantage to the contractor, it being so situated with reference to the New York Central and Pennsylvania depot as that hauling the mail from that station directl3r to those stations was less trouble and labor to the claimant than though such mail matter had been left at branch post-offices proper or the post-office. If the claimant performed in substance the same service which he was required to perform under the contract with less trouble and expense to himself upon a quantum meruit claim, he would not be entitled to recover. If by consent of the other contracting party a party is relieved from a portion of the contract and performs an act not coming directly within the contract at less expense and trouble, he can not charge the other party with additional pay if by such arrangement he was exonerated from an equivalent service under the agreement. The stations in this case, although receiving large quantities of mail and having employed in them several clerks, ho mail was distributed from them, and it does not appear that their establishment and use by the Post-Office Department relieved the claimant from the performance of an equivalent service under the contract. We therefore hold that, as to the substations from which no mail was delivered, the plaintiff has the same right to recover that it has for receiving stations.

Upon the whole case it is determined that the plaintiff is entitled to recover the sum of forty-one thousand eight hundred and one dollars (§41,801).  