[blocks in formation]

the mail between Chicago and Kansas City. Payment was made on the basis of weight hauled and the speed with which the service was performed. The company also furnished sufficient "railway post office cars," sixty feet in length, to make three round trips each twenty-four hours. This constituted three "car lines," for which the plaintiff received the maximum additional compensation then allowed by Rev. Stat., § 4004, under which the pay varied in proportion to the length of the car.

This contract was to expire June 30, 1907, by limitation; and, with a view of obtaining data, and proposing terms for a new arrangement to begin July 1st, 1907, the postal authorities, in February, mailed to the company a "Distance Circular," which, among other things, stated that the company was "to accept and perform mail service under the conditions prescribed by law and the regulations of the Department." The form was filled out and signed by an agent of the company. He, however, noted exceptions to certain postal orders previously promulgated, and "future regulations which, in the company's opinion, might be unjust or unfairly reduce its compensation for services." The circular, with these objections, was not received by the Department until July 24th, but the company, in the meantime, and without any express contract, continued to carry the mails and to furnish the three car lines. Payment therefor was made at the maximum rate allowed by the act of March 2, 1907 (34 Stat. 1205, 1212, c. 2513), which declared:

"Additional pay allowed for every line comprising a daily trip each way of railway post-office cars shall be at arate not exceeding twenty-five dollars per mile per annum for cars forty feet in length thirty-two dollars

and fifty cents per mile per annum for fifty foot cars and forty dollars per mile per annum for cars fifty-five feet or more in length."

The Reports and Returns, as to the amount of mail car

[blocks in formation]

ried over plaintiff's road during the spring of 1907, indicated that the quantity of east bound matter was less than that going west from Chicago to Kansas City. Accordingly the Department, on July 18, 1907, "authorized 'three half lines' R. P. O. cars fifty feet in length

[ocr errors]

to supersede three 'half lines' of such cars sixty feet in length over route 135,098, Chicago to Kansas City." As the distance between the two cities was about 450 miles this change would largely reduce the rate of pay, and the company at once objected, claiming in the lengthy correspondence, and subsequent suit which followed, that the statute did not authorize "half car lines"; that the order would require the company to furnish 60-foot cars in one direction and 50-foot cars on the return, thus involving an empty haul one way or forcing the company to furnish 60-foot cars both ways, without corresponding or adequate compensation.

The Department, on the other hand, insisted that under the statute, regulations and long continued practice it had the right to establish "half lines"; that "no contract would be made with any railroad by which it could be excepted from the postal laws and regulations," and that compensation would only be made in accordance with the orders of the Department establishing the three half lines.

The warrant in settlement of the September Quarter was made out on this basis. It was accepted by the company, but under protest. In answer the Department again repeated the statement that any service performed by the company must be with the distinct understanding that payment was to be made in accordance with the orders for space, facilities and car service, required by the postal authorities. The plaintiff continued to protest and to furnish the three full lines. They were daily used by the Department for postal purposes, but payment was made only for half lines.

The plaintiff thereupon brought suit, under the Tucker

[blocks in formation]

Act, claiming that even though there was no express agreement, it was entitled, as under an implied contract, to recover the reasonable value of the three car lines authorized by law, furnished by the company and actually used by the Post-Office Department. This contention should have been sustained but for the fact that neither party was bound to continue the indefinite relation begun July 1, 1907, and under which the rights and liabilities of each arose, from day to day, as the facilities were furnished by the one and used by the other. Whatever may be the rule between private parties where both are demanding performance, and each is insisting on different terms (Thompson v. Sanborn, 52 Michigan, 141; Jenkins v. National Association, 111 Georgia, 732, 734), no such question arises in a controversy like this between the railroad on the one hand and the post-office on the other. For, public policy requires that the mail should be carried subject to postal regulations, and that the Department and not the railroad should, in the absence of a contract, determine what service was needed and under what conditions it should be performed. The company in carrying the mails was not hauling freight, nor was it acting as a common carrier, with corresponding rights and liabilities but in this respect it was serving as an agency of government, and as much subject to the laws and regulations as every other branch of the Post-Office.

The statute defined a car line, but did not fix the compensation. It left that to be determined by the Postmaster General, who could have named any rate, not to exceed the statutory maximum. By virtue of that authority he could have made the same price for 60-foot cars as for 50-foot cars, and, as the greater includes the less, he could abolish full lines, or establish “half lines,” and adjust the rates accordingly. Such had been the practice before the passage of the act of 1907, and there is nothing in its language indicating any intent

Opinion of the Court.

225 U.S.

to change the construction previously given, Rev. Stat., § 4004.

The railroad, however, was not bound to furnish "half lines" nor to accept the terms named by the Postmaster General. For Congress had not legislated so as to require compulsory service, at adequate compensation to be judicially determined or in a method provided by statute. And as the plaintiff's road between Chicago and Kansas City had not been aided by a land grant, it was, under existing law, not obliged to carry the mails when tendered, nor to supply R. P. O. cars when demanded. Eastern Railroad v. United States, 129 U. S. 391, 395–396; United States v. Alabama G. S. Railroad, 142 U. S. 615. It may have been impracticable to furnish long cars one way and short ones the other. But there was in that fact no hardship imposed by law. The company could have protected itself against onerous terms, or inadequate compensation, by refusing to supply the facilities on the conditions named by the Department. But if, instead of availing itself of that right, it preferred to furnish 60-foot cars after having been informed that the Department only needed and would only pay for those 50 feet in length, the company cannot recover for more than the Department ordered; nor under the statute can it demand compensation for full lines, when the Postmaster General had established "half lines" consisting of cars of one length going and of another returning on the route between Chicago and Kansas City.

There was no error in dismissing the complaint, and the judgment is


225 U.S.




No. 512. Argued April 29, 1912.-Decided June 7, 1912.

In order to warrant a court of equity in restraining the enforcement of a judgment at law, the defeated party must show that it is manifestly unconscionable for the judgment creditor to enforce it; it is not sufficient for him merely to show that because of newly discovered facts or evidence he would have a better prospect of success on a retrial.

It is incumbent on one seeking to have the enforcement of a judgment against him enjoined by a court of equity on the ground of newly discovered evidence to show that his failure to discover the evidence relied upon as defense was not attributable to his own want of diligence.

For the purpose of equity restraining the enforcement of a judgment

at law, a defense is not deemed to be newly discovered or to have been lost by accident or mistake, if it was, or ought to have been, within the knowledge of the party when he made his defense to the action at law.

A defendant in a libel suit who deliberately abstained from defending by justification of the charges, cannot, after verdict and judgment against him, come into equity and seek to restrain the enforcement of the judgment on the ground of newly discovered evidence tending to prove the truth of the charges.

Quare whether a defendant in a libel suit who made a public charge of malfeasance in office without having evidence of truth sufficient to warrant prudent counsel in making an issue of it, is not barred from relief in equity under the doctrine of clean hands.

36 App. D. C. 289, affirmed.

THE facts, which involve an attempt to restrain in an action in equity the enforcement of a judgment obtained on the law side of the court against complainant in an action for libel, are stated in the opinion.

« ForrigeFortsett »