Seaboard Air Line Ry. v. United States, 256 U.S. 655 (1920). · Go Syfert
Seaboard Air Line Ry. v. United States, 256 U.S. 655 (1920). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
176 citation events (60 in the last 25 years) across 20 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: California Ridge Wind Energy LLC v. United States (uscfc, 2015-12-21)
Treatment trajectory · 1922 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1922 1974 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 19 distinct citers.
examined Cited as authority (quoted) California Ridge Wind Energy LLC v. United States (2×) also: Cited as authority (rule)
Fed. Cl. · 2015 · signal: see · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence high
ertainly congress did not intend to discourage or obstruct an orderly reorganization under the laws of the various states any more than it intended to discourage and obstruct orderly merger or consolidation of corporations under these laws.
examined Cited as authority (quoted) Bishop Hill Energy LLC v. United States (2×) also: Cited as authority (rule)
Fed. Cl. · 2015 · signal: see · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence high
ertainly congress did not intend to discourage or obstruct an orderly reorganization under the laws of the various states any more than it intended to discourage and obstruct orderly merger or consolidation of corporations under these laws.
examined Cited as authority (quoted) California Ridge Wind Energy LLC v. United States (2×) also: Cited as authority (rule)
Fed. Cl. · 2015 · signal: see · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence high
ertainly congress did not intend to discourage or obstruct an orderly reorganization under the laws of the various states any more than it intended to discourage and obstruct orderly merger or consolidation of corporations under these laws.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) EDUCATION CREDITOR TRUST v. United States
Fed. Cl. · 2025 · confidence medium
Seaboard Air Line Ry. v. United States, 256 U.S. 655, 657 (1921). 16 In other words, “[t]here is a distinction between a voluntary transfer of contract rights . . . and one in which the transfer is forced by law, like corporate succession through purchase or merger, or by the operation of law, such as bankruptcy.” Am.
cited Cited as authority (rule) Oxy USA, Inc. v. United States
Fed. Cl. · 2022 · confidence medium
Cl. at 777 (citing Seaboard Air Line Ry. v. United States, 256 U.S. 655, 657 (1921)).
discussed Cited "see" Shell Oil Company v. United States
Fed. Cl. · 2020 · signal: see · confidence high
See Seaboard Airline Ry. v. United States, 256 U.S. 655, 657 (1921) (The Act does not apply to transfers arising from “the orderly merger or consolidation of corporations.”). 14 The court previously held as much when it concluded that “the [o]il [c]ompanies[’] right to be reimbursed for environmental remediation costs under the [a]vgas [c]ontracts matured prior to 2011.” Shell Oil Co., 130 Fed.
examined Cited "see" Wells Fargo & Company v. United States (3×)
Fed. Cl. · 2014 · signal: see · confidence high
See Seaboard Air Line Ry. v. United States, 256 U.S. 655, 656-57 , 41 S.Ct. 611 , 65 L.Ed. 1149 (1921).
discussed Cited "see" Wells Fargo & Company v. United States (2×)
Fed. Cl. · 2014 · signal: see · confidence high
See Seaboard Air Line Ry. v. United States, 256 U.S. 655, 656-57 , 41 S.Ct. *39 611, 65 L.Ed. 1149 (1921).
examined Cited "see" Liberty Ammunition, Inc. v. United States (3×)
Fed. Cl. · 2011 · signal: see · confidence high
See Tuftco, 614 F.2d at 745 (“Perhaps the most significant exception ... is when transfer of a ... contract is effected by consolidation or merger to the successor of a claimant corporation.” (citing Seaboard Air Line Ry. v. United States, 256 U.S. 655 , 41 S.Ct. 611 , 65 L.Ed. 1149 (1921))); see also L-3 Commc’ns Integrated Sys., L.P. v. United States, 84 Fed.Cl. 768, 777 (2008) (“Where a transfer is incident to the sale of an entire business or the sale of an entire portion of a business, ... the assignment is exempted from the anti-assignment statute.” (citing Lyons Sec.
examined Cited "see" L-3 Communications Integrated Systems v. United States (3×)
Fed. Cl. · 2008 · signal: see · confidence high
See Seaboard Air Line Ry. v. United States, 256 U.S. 655, 657 , 41 S.Ct. 611 , 65 L.Ed. 1149 (1921); see also Rel-Reeves, Inc. v. United States, 221 Ct. Cl. 263 , 606 F.2d 949 , 954 n. 7 (1979).
examined Cited "see" Cienega Gardens v. United States (3×)
Fed. Cl. · 2005 · signal: see · confidence high
See Seaboard Air Line Ry. v. United States, 256 U.S. 655, 657 , 41 S.Ct. 611 , 65 L.Ed. 1149 (1921); Tuftco Corp. v. United States, 222 Ct.Cl. 277 , 614 F.2d 740, 745 (1980).
examined Cited "see" Westinghouse Electric Co. v. United States (3×)
Fed. Cl. · 2003 · signal: see · confidence high
See Seaboard Air Line Ry. v. United States, 256 U.S. 655, 657 , 41 S.Ct. 611 , 65 L.Ed. 1149 (1921); see also Rel-Reeves, Inc. v. United States, 221 Ct.Cl. 263 , 606 F.2d 949 , 954 n. 7 (1979).
examined Cited "see" Johnson Controls World Services, Inc. v. United States (3×)
Fed. Cl. · 1999 · signal: see · confidence high
See Seaboard Air Line Ry. v. United States, 256 U.S. 655, 657 , 41 S.Ct. 611 , 65 L.Ed. 1149 (1921); Rel-Reeves, Inc. v. United States, 221 Ct.Cl. 263 , 273 n. 7, 606 F.2d 949 , 954 n. 7 (1979); Patterson, 173 Ct.Cl. at 823-24 , 354 F.2d at 329-30 ; UIIS, 26 Cl.Ct. at 898 .
examined Cited "see" Statesman Savings Holding Corp. v. United States (3×)
Fed. Cl. · 1998 · signal: see · confidence high
See Seaboard Air Line Ry. v. United States, 256 U.S. 655, 657 , 41 S.Ct. 611, 612 , 65 L.Ed. 1149 (1921) (stating that assignments to receivers are beyond ambit of statute). .
examined Cited "see" United States v. Improved Premises Located at Northwest Corner of Irving Place & Sixteenth Street (3×)
S.D.N.Y. · 1962 · signal: see · confidence high
See Seaboard Air Line Railway v. United States, 256 U.S. 655 , 41 S.Ct. 611 , 65 L.Ed. 1149 (1921); United States v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co., 338 U.S. 366 , 70 S.Ct. 207 , 94 L.Ed. 171 (1949).
cited Cited "see" Export Oil Corp. v. United States
Ct. Cl. · 1928 · signal: see · confidence high
See Seaboard Air Line Railway v. United States, 256 U. S. 655 ; Western Pacific Co. v. United States, 268 U. S. 271, 275 .
examined Cited "see, e.g." Holland v. United States (3×)
Fed. Cl. · 2004 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e.g., Seaboard Air Line Ry. v. United States, 256 U.S. 655 , 41 S.Ct. 611 , 65 L.Ed. 1149 (1921); Johnson Controls World Serv., Inc. v. United States, 44 Fed.Cl. 334, 344 (1999); Standard Mfg.
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Lehn & Fink Products Corp. v. Commissioner (2×)
unknown court · 1946 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also Seaboard Airline Railway , 256 U.S. 655 .
cited Cited "see, e.g." Lehn & Fink Products Corp. v. Commissioner
Tax Ct. · 1946 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also Seaboard Airline Railway, 256 U. S. 655 .
Seaboard Air Line Railway
v.
United States
62.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Mar 16, 1920.
256 U.S. 655
Mr. Benjamin Carter, with whom Mr. Frank Carter Pope was oh the brief, for appellant., Mr. Assistant Attorney General Davis, .with whom Air. Crowley Wentworth,. Special Assistant to the Attorney General; was on the. brief, for the United States,
McReynolds.
Cited by 73 opinions  |  Published
1 passages pin-cited by 3 cases
Pinpoint authority: bottom 91%
Citer courts: Federal Claims (3)
Mr. Justice McReynolds

delivered the opinion of the .court.

Appellant sued in the Court of Claims to recover balances for transportation services originally payable to the Florida Central & Peninsular Railroad Company, to whose rights it had succeeded through merger or consoli- . dation.. Holding that because of' § 3477, Rev. Stats. (9 Stat. 41, and 10 Stat. 170), appellant could not maintain the action, that court dismissed , its petition.

[*656] Section 3477 — “All-transfers and assignments made of any claim upon the United States, or of any part or share thereof, or interest therein, whether absolute or conditional, and whatever may be the consideration therefor, and all powers of attorney, orders, or other authorities for receiving payment of any such claim, or of any part or share thereof, shall be absolutely null and void, tinless they are freely made and executed in' the presence of at least two attesting witnesses, after the allowance of such a claim, the ascertainment of the amount due, and the issuing of a warrant for the payment thereof.”

The Seaboard Air Line Railway was originally chartered under the laws of Virginia; by authorized union with others, it became a consolidated corporation under the laws of - Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, and Alabama; and in- 1903 under “Articles of agreement of merger and consolidation ” and the statutes' of Georgia and Florida (§ 2173, Code of Ga. 1895,; .§ 2812, Geni State of Fla.), the'-Florida .Central & Peninsular Railroad; a Florida, corporation, was united with it. As agreed and provided by the láws of the two States, the rights, privileges, franchises, and all property, real, per-’ sonal, and mixed, and all debts on every account, as well as stock subscriptions and,other> things in.action belonging to each of the constituents,-were transferred to and vested in the consolidated corporation without, further act or deed, “as effectually as they were in the former companies.”

Section 3477 has been before this court many times for construction aud application. United States v. Gillis, 95 U. S. 407; Erwin v. United States; 97 U. S. 392; Spofford v. Kirk, 97 U. S. 484; Goodman v. Niblack, 102 U. S. 556; St. Paul & Duluth R. R. Co. v. United States, 112 U. S. 733; Bailey v. United, States, 109 U. S. 432; Butler v. Goreley, 146 U. S. 303; Hager v. Swayne, 149 U. S. 242; Ball v. Halselly 161 U. S. 72; Price v. Forrest, 173 U. S. 410.

[*657] In Erwin v. United States, Goodman v. Niblack, and Price v. Forrest, certain exceptions to the general language of the section were recognized because not within the evil at which the statute aimed. It was intended to prevent frauds upon the Treasury, and the mischiefs designed to be remedied “are mainly two: First, the danger that the rights of the government might be embar- ' rassed by having to deal with several persons instead of one, and by the introduction of a party who was a stranger to the original transaction. Second, That, by a transfer of' such a claim against the government to one or more .persons not originally interested;in it, the way might be conveniently. opened to such improper influences in prosecuting the claim before the departments, the courts, or the Congress, as desperate cases, when the reward is contingent on success, so often suggest.”

We cannot believe that Congress intended to discourage, hinder or obstruct the orderly merger or consolidation of corporations as the various Statés might authorize for the public interest. There is no probability that the United States could suffer injury in. respect of outstanding claims from such union of interests and certainly the’ result would not be more deleterious than would follow their passing to heirs, devisees, assignees in bankruptcy, or receivers, all of which changes of ownership have been declared without the ambit of the statute. The same principle'which required the exceptions heretofore approved applies here.

The judgment of -the court below is reversed and the cause, remanded with direction to afford reasonable opportunity to both sides for taking aiiy additional proof rendered necessary by the withdrawal by the United States of a stipulation üpon^which reliance had been placed; and' for further proceedings in conformity with this opinion.

Reversed.