Texas & P. Ry. Co. v. United States
| Decision Date | 13 June 1951 |
| Docket Number | No. 14287.,14287. |
| Citation | 189 F.2d 749 |
| Parties | TEXAS & P. RY. CO. v. UNITED STATES. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit |
Otto Atchley, Texarkana, Tex. (Atchley & Vance, Texarkana, Tex., on the brief), for appellant.
Leo Meltzer, Attorney, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C. (James M. McInerney, Asst. Atty. Gen., R. S. Wilson, U. S. Atty., Charles A. Beasley, Jr., Asst. U. S. Atty., Fort Smith, Ark., and James O. Tolbert, Attorney, Interstate Commerce Commission, Washington, D. C., on the brief), for appellee.
Before SANBORN, WOODROUGH, and RIDDICK, Circuit Judges.
The Texas and Pacific Railway Company appeals from a judgment in a civil action brought by the United States under the Safety Appliance Acts, 45 U.S.C.A. §§ 1-16.
So far as material on this appeal the complaint charged the Texas and Pacific with five separate violations of the Acts, committed in hauling five admittedly defective freight cars between two points in the joint freight and terminal yards of Texas and Pacific Railway Company and the Missouri-Pacific Railroad Company in Texarkana, U. S. A., the movement of the cars beginning in Arkansas and ending in Texas. The United States admits that if the movement of cars was in fact by the Missouri-Pacific and not by the Texas and Pacific, as the latter contends, there was no violation of the Safety Appliance Acts by either railroad under the proviso in 45 U.S.C.A. § 13.1
The facts were stipulated. Texarkana is the southern terminus of one branch of Missouri-Pacific and the northern terminus of one branch of Texas and Pacific. Greater Texarkana lies in both Arkansas and Texas. The line separating the two States runs through the Union Station and the terminal yards of the railroads. Missouri-Pacific is the owner of all tracks and facilities in the yards in Arkansas, and Texas and Pacific is the owner of all tracks and facilities in the yards in Texas. For many years the terminal yards have been operated as joint yards for the use and benefit of both railroads under an agreement between them. Prior to March 30, 1933, the yards were operated by Missouri-Pacific for the benefit of both railroads, and thereafter under the same contract by Texas and Pacific. On July 1, 1935, the agreement between the railroads for the operation of the yards was changed, and thereafter and at all times pertinent in this case the operation of the yards has been as provided in the new agreement.
Five freight cars with defective appliances were brought into that portion of the freight yards belonging to the Missouri-Pacific by the Missouri-Pacific from some point north of Texarkana. On arrival they were inspected and found to possess the defects charged in the complaint. The necessary repairs were such that they could not be made at the point in the joint yards where the cars were found to be defective. The nearest point on the Missouri-Pacific lines where it maintained for its sole use facilities available for making the repairs necessary was 64 miles north of Texarkana at Gurdon, Arkansas. But, approximately 3,000 feet from the point where the cars were inspected and found to be defective, there were available repair facilities in that portion of the joint yards in Texarkana owned by the Texas and Pacific. The cars were moved from the point of inspection to the repair tracks just mentioned and were there repaired. When they left the repair tracks they contained no defects in violation of any of the requirements of the Safety Appliance Acts.
Under the contract of July 1, 1935, each railroad granted to the other the right to use any and all property and facilities owned by it in the joint yards. In the agreement the component parts of the joint yards were classified as joint freight station facilities, joint coach facilities, joint gas compressing facilities, joint engine-house facilities, and joint yard facilities. Joint yard facilities were defined as including "Car shops, repair track facilities, material racks, shop machinery, tools and equipment and other facilities appurtenant to the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
McGrath v. Cities Service Co.
... ... McGRATH, Atty. Gen., ... CITIES SERVICE CO. et al ... No. 25, Docket 21925 ... United States Court of Appeals Second Circuit ... Argued May 2, 1951 ... Decided June 13, 1951.189 F.2d ... ...
-
United States v. Houston Belt & Terminal Ry. Co.
...in the first count a violation of the statute. As to the second and third counts it held, upon the authority of Texas & P. Ry. Co. v. United States, 8 Cir., 189 F.2d 749, that since these movements progressed toward, and ended at, the repair tracks, and since this was the safest, most exped......
-
Rodgers v. Conemaugh & Black Lick Railroad Company
...Co. v. United States, 3 Cir., 191 F. 1; Chicago, Burlington & Quincy R. Co. v. United States, 8 Cir., 211 F. 12; Texas & P. Ry. Co. v. United States, 8 Cir., 189 F.2d 749; Brady v. Terminal R. Ass'n of St. Louis, 303 U.S. 10, 58 S.Ct. 426, 82 L.Ed. 614; United States v. N. Y. Cent. R. Co., ......
-
Clark v. Atlantic Coast Line Railroad, 13396.
...by the Safety Appliance Act. Two cases are cited by Terminal in support of its first contention. The first, Texas & P. Ry. Co. v. United States, 8 Cir., 1951, 189 F.2d 749, involved § 13 of the Safety Appliance Act (see note 1, supra), which provides a penalty for hauling, permitting to be ......