CHANROBLES VIRTUAL LAW LIBRARY
US LAWS, STATUTES and CODES : Chan Robles Virtual Law Library USA Supreme Court Decisions | Resolutions : Chan Robles Virtual Law Library

ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library™ | chanrobles.com™   
Main Index Repository of Laws, Statutes and Codes Latest Philippine Supreme Court Decisions Chan Robles Virtual Law Library Latest Legal Updates Philippine Legal Resources Significant Philippine Legal Resources Worldwide Legal Resources Philippine Supreme Court Decisions United States Legal Resources United States Supreme Court Jurisprudence ChanRobles LawTube - Social Network

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com DebtKollect Company, Inc. - Debt Collection Firm Intellectual Property Division - Chan Robles Law Firm

Philippine Supreme Court DecisionsChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

google search for chanrobles.comSearch for www.chanrobles.com


UNITED STATES V. ST. LOUIS, S.F. & TEXAS RY. CO., 270 U. S. 1 (1926)

Subscribe to Cases that cite 270 U. S. 1 RSS feed for this section

U.S. Supreme Court

United States v. St. Louis, S.F. & Texas Ry. Co., 270 U.S. 1 (1926)

United States v. St. Louis, San Francisco

& Texas Railway Company

Nos. 91 and 92

Argued November 16, 1925

Decided January 18, 1926

270 U.S. 1

APPEALS FROM THE COURT OF CLAIMS

Syllabus

1. Transportation Act, 1920, amending par. 3, § 16, of the Interstate Commerce Act, provides:

"All actions at law by carriers subject to this Act for recovery of their charges, or any part thereof, shall be begun within three years from the time the cause of action accrues and not after."

Held not applicable retroactively to causes of action existing at the date of the Transportation Act. P 270 U. S. 3.

2. The Act of June 7, 1924, which further amended par. 3, § 16, of the Interstate Commerce Act, among other things by adding that its provisions

"shall extend to and embrace cases in which the cause of action has heretofore accrued as well as cases in which the cause of action may hereafter accrue,"

was not intended to defeat claims on which suits duly brought were then pending, or in which judgment had already been entered. Id.

59 Ct.Cls. 322 affirmed. chanroblesvirtualawlibrary

Page 270 U. S. 2

Appeals from judgments recovered in the Court of Claims by two railroads for transportation service rendered to the government.

MR. JUSTICE BRANDEIS delivered the opinion of the Court.

These cases, which were argued together, present on similar facts the same question of law. In each, the railroad had, prior to federal control, rendered to the War Department transportation service, payment for which was disallowed by the Auditor. Each company commenced suit therefor in the Court of Claims more than three years, but within six years, from the time when the cause of action accrued, and after the lapse of three years from the enactment of Transportation Act Feb. 28, 1920, c. 91, 41 Stat. 456. That Act, amending paragraph 3 of § 16 of the Interstate Commerce Act, provides:

"All actions at law by carriers subject to this Act for recovery of their charges, or any part thereof, shall be begun within three years from the time the cause of action accrues, and not after."

The government defended these suits solely on the ground that the right to sue had been lost by lapse of time. It contended that the three-year limitation applies chanroblesvirtualawlibrary

Page 270 U. S. 3

to claims against the government prosecuted in the Court of Claims, as well as to actions brought against other shippers in other courts; that it applies to claims which arose prior to the passage of the 1920 Act; that the three-year period began at the date when the cause of action accrued, provided there remained at the passage of the Act a reasonable time before the expiration of the three years within which suit could have been brought, and that, in any event, suit on such claims is barred where, as in the cases at bar, the suit is commenced more than three years after the passage of the 1920 Act. In each of these cases, judgment was entered for the plaintiff. Wabash Ry. Co. v. United States, 59 Ct.Cls. 322; see also Schaff, Receiver v. United States, 59 Ct.Cls. 318. An appeal to this Court, under §§ 242 and 243 of the Judicial Code, was taken in each case before June 7, 1924.

That a statute shall not be given retroactive effect unless such construction is required by explicit language or by necessary implication is a rule of general application. It has been applied by this Court to statutes governing procedure, United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. United States, 209 U. S. 306, and specifically to the limitation of actions under another section of Transportation Act of 1920, Fullerton-Krueger Lumber Co. v. Northern Pacific Ry. Co., 266 U. S. 435. There is nothing in the language of paragraph 3 of § 16, or in any other provision of the Act, or in its history, which requires us to hold that the three-year limitation applies under any circumstances to causes of action existing at the date of the Act.

The government contends that, even if the suits were not barred by Transportation Act of 1920, they were barred by the Act of June 7, 1924, c. 325, 43 Stat. 633, which amended paragraph 3, among other things, by making the following addition thereto: chanroblesvirtualawlibrary

Page 270 U. S. 4

"(h) The provisions of this paragraph (3) shall extend to and embrace cases in which the cause of action has heretofore accrued, as well as cases in which the cause of action may hereafter accrue. . . ."

The Senate and House reports accompanying the bill (S. 2704) state that the purpose of the amendment was to revive claims barred under the existing law as interpreted in Kansas City Ry. Co. v. Wolf, 261 U. S. 133. It is not to be assumed that Congress intended by that amendment to defeat claims on which suits duly brought were then pending, or on which, as in the cases at bar, judgment had already been entered below. Compare Herrick v. Boquillas Land & Cattle Co., 200 U. S. 96.

As we hold that paragraph 3 does not apply to any cause of action existing at the date of the passage of Transportation Act of 1920, we have no occasion to consider whether, under any circumstances, it is applicable to claims against the government brought in the Court of Claims pursuant to § 145, Judicial Code. See Western Pacific R. Co. v. United States, 59 Ct.Cls. 67, 81.

Affirmed.





Back
ChanRobles™ LawTube

google search for chanrobles.com Search for www.chanrobles.com


Supreme Court Decisions Philippine Supreme Court DecisionsUS Supreme Court Decisions



www.chanrobles.us




QUICK SEARCH

cralaw

Browse By ->> Volume


cralaw

Browse By ->> Year


cralaw

  Copyright © ChanRobles Publishing Company | Disclaimer | E-mail Restrictions
ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™
 
RED