
    UNITED STATES v. READING COMPANY READING COMPANY v. UNITED STATES UNITED STATES v. SOUTHERN RY. CO. UNITED STATES v. ST. LOUIS, BROWNSVILLE & MEXICO RY. CO. UNITED STATES v. NEW YORK, NEW HAVEN & HARTFORD R. R. CO. UNITED STATES v. CENTRAL NEW ENGLAND RY. CO. UNITED STATES v. NEW ENGLAND STEAMSHIP CO. UNITED STATES v. BALTIMORE & OHIO R. R. CO. PERE MARQUETTE RY. CO. v. UNITED STATES
    
      [60 C. Cls. 131; 270 U. S. 320] [60 C. Cls. 156; 270 U. S. 320] [60 C. Cls. 1029; 270 U. S. 320] [60 C. Cls. 174; 270 U. S. 320] [60 C. Cls. 1029; 270 U. S. 320] [60 C. Cls. 1029; 270 U. S. 320] [60 C. Cls. 359, 373; 270 U. S. 320] [59 C. Cls. 965; 270 U. S. 320]
    In the Pere Marquette By. Go. case judgment was rendered in the court below in favor of the United States, in the Beading Go. case and the Baltimore <& Ohio B. B. Go. case (60 C. Cls. 359) in part in favor of and in part against the United States, and in the other cases against the United States. On appeal the judgment in the Pere Marquette By. Go. was reversed, and the judgments in the other cases affirmed, the Supreme Court deciding:
    1. Where amounts earned by military transportation before Federal control were paid, either to the respective railroads entitled or to the Director General of Railroads (who, on taking over their properties, assumed the administration of their existing credits and liabilities, and kept accounts of them, as matters distinct from those arising during Federal control) ; and where, subsequently to such payments, the claims paid were in part disallowed, through error, by the Government accounting officials, and the amounts disallowed were collected by them from the Director General by deductions from Railroad Administration bills for transportation during Federal control, and were in turn charged by him against the respective carriers — held that final settlements made, upon the return of the railroad properties, between the respective carriers and the Director General, acting for the United States, based upon accounts showing the above-mentioned charges, and covering all demands “ as between the parties hereto, growing out of the Federal control of railroads,” were not intended, and did not operate, to release the United States from liability to the carriers .for the amounts so erroneously collected.
    2. A railway company which, in error but without protest, accepts payment of bills for Government transportation at reduced, “ land-grant,” rates, can not maintain a suit in the Court of Claims for the difference between the amounts paid and the larger amounts to which it was entitled.
   Mr. Justice Butlbk

delivered the opinion of the Supreme Court March 1,1926.  