
    HOUSTON, EAST & WEST TEXAS RAILWAY COMPANY v. THE UNITED STATES
    [No. A-240.
    Decided June 6, 1927]
    
      On the Proofs
    
    
      Railroad, rates; impedimenta; party movements; free baggage. — The transportation of impedimenta over plaintiffs lines on bills of lading, in connection with a movement of troops, must be paid for at the established rates for freight, and deduction therefrom under a rule which allows one baggage car free for every twenty-five fares is unauthorized.
    
      Same; accounting with Railroad Administration. — Where transportation has been correctly xsaid for by a' disbursing officer, the accounting officer, ruling that it has been overpaid, deducts the amount of the supposed overpayment from an account rendered by the United States Railroad Administration for transportation furnished the Government during Federal control, and said amount is thereafter charged to the carrier by the Director General of Railroads and paid by it to him in cash, the carrier can recover.
    
      The Reporter’s statement of the case:
    
      Messrs. William R. Harr and Charles H. Bates for the plaintiff.
    
      Mr. Lisle A. Smith, with whom was Mr. Assistant Attorney General Herman J. Galloway, for the defendant.
    The court made special findings of fact, as follows:
    I. Plaintiff is a corporation of the State of Texas.
    II. In November, 1917, the War Department of the United States made three shipments of Army impedimenta over plaintiff’s lines of railroad, as freight, upon Government or commercial bills of lading, for which transportation plaintiff rendered its bills to the defendant in accordance with the published freight tariffs.
    III. In settlement of two of its bills, both numbered Q.-4613-4, the Auditor for the War Department, per settlement No. 57434, dated June 28, 1920, disallowed a total of $968.42 upon the ground that the Government was entitled to one baggage car free for every 25 fares.
    
      Plaintiff’s bill Q-4073-12, in the amount of $272.52, covering the third shipment, was paid in full by a disbursing officer. Subsequently the Auditor for the War Department deducted the amount of $207.62 from an account rendered by the Eailroad Administration for transportation furnished by it during the period of Federal control, upon the ground that the Government was entitled to one baggage car free for every 25 fares. This amount of $207.62 was charged back to the plaintiff by the Director General and, prior to the final settlement of the plaintiff corporation with the Director General, was adjusted through a cash payment made by the corporation to the Director General of the full amount of such deduction.
    Plaintiff filed a protest against the action of the Auditor for the War Department in making the disallowance and deduction above stated.
    The court decided that plaintiff was entitled to recover $1,176.04.
   Campbell, Chief Justice,

delivered the opinion of the -court:

The case is before the court upon a stipulation of facts. These present two questions, both of which have been determined in prior cases.

(1) The plaintiff having transported upon Government bills of lading certain shipments of horses, wagons, tents, rations, and other impedimenta, rendered its bills in due course in the amounts of $1,033.32 and $272.52, respectively. The Auditor for the War Department disallowed $968.42 of the first item upon the ground that the Government was entitled to one baggage car free for every 25 men transported, the movement involving the transportation of troops. This deduction was unauthorized. See Missouri Pacific R. R. Co. case, 56 C. Cls. 341; United States v. Reading Co., 270 U. S. 320, 323.

(2) The second item mentioned is on account of transportation furnished by the plaintiff for which it rendered its bill and the same was paid. Afterwards the accounting officers in settling the disbursing officer’s accounts refused to allow the payment because of the ruling of the comptroller that the Government was entitled to one baggage car free for every 25 men transported in a troop movement. To adjust this supposed overpayment, there was deducted from bills of the Eailroad Administration, then having plaintiff’s line under Federal control, the amount of the overpayment, $207.62, and thereafter the plaintiff paid the amount to the Director General of Eailroads. As already said, the deduction by the accounting officers was erroneous, and the settlement between plaintiff and the Eailroad Administration established the former’s right to recover the amount deducted. Reading Co. case, supra.

Plaintiff should have judgment for both items. And it is so ordered.

Moss, Judge/ Hat, Judge; and Booth, Judge, concur.

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