Belt Ry. Co. of Chicago v. United States, 1,475.

CourtUnited States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (7th Circuit)
PartiesBELT RY. CO. OF CHICAGO v. UNITED STATES.
Decision Date03 February 1909
Docket Number1,475.

168 F. 542

BELT RY. CO. OF CHICAGO
v.
UNITED STATES.

No. 1,475.

United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.

February 3, 1909


On Rehearing, March 18, 1909. [168 F. 543]

William J. Henley, for plaintiff in error.

James H. Wilkerson, Luther W. Walter, Philip J. Doherty, and Edwin W. Sims, U.S. Atty., for defendant in error.

Before GROSSCUP, BAKER, and SEAMAN, Circuit Judges.

BAKER, Circuit Judge.

The writ is addressed to a judgment assessing a penalty against plaintiff in error for an alleged violation of the provisions of the Safety Appliance acts in relation to power brakes. Act Cong. March 2, 1893, c. 196, 27 Stat. 531 (U.S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 3174); Act Cong. April 1, 1896, c. 87, 29 Stat. 85; Act Cong. March 2, 1903, c. 976, 32 Stat. 943 (U.S. Comp. St. Supp. 1907, p. 885). Certain questions relating to the purpose, scope, and validity of this legislation are considered in Wabash R. Co. v. U.S., and Elgin, etc., R. Co. v. U.S. (herewith decided), 168 F. 1.

The only assignments presented and discussed by plaintiff in error are that the court erred in refusing to direct a verdict of not guilty, and in giving the following instruction:

'The question therefore presents itself, and it is a legal question, was the Belt Company, at the time it moved this string of 42 freight cars, containing a car originating in Illinois and destined to Wisconsin, engaged in interstate commerce? I charge you that when a commodity originating at a point in one state and destined to a point in another state is put aboard a car, and that car begins to move interstate commerce has begun, and that interstate commerce it continues to be until it reaches its destination. If between the point of origin of this commodity and the point of destination of this commodity, the car in which it is being vehicled from origin to destination passes over a line of track wholly within a city, within a county, or within a state, the railway company operating that line of track while moving this commodity, so originating and destined from one point to another point, intrastate, is engaged in interstate commerce.'

Was there sufficient evidence to warrant the jury in finding that in hauling the train in question plaintiff in error as a common carrier was 'engaged in interstate commerce by railroad'?

The railroad tracks of plaintiff in error lie wholly within Cook county, Ill. There are 21 miles of main line and about 90 miles of switching and transfer tracks. The main line constitutes a belt that intersects the trunk lines leading into Chicago. By leads and Y's direct physical [168 F. 544] connection with the trunk lines is maintained.

Plaintiff in error's business consists in transporting cars between industries located along its line, between industries and trunk lines, and between trunk lines. The first two kinds need not be noticed, as the transportation here involved was between trunk lines. The train in question contained, among others, a car laden with lumber, and consigned from a point in Illinois on the Chicago & Eastern Illinois to...

To continue reading

Request your trial
15 practice notes
  • Mississippi Cent R. Co. v. Knight, 24615
    • United States
    • Mississippi Supreme Court
    • March 30, 1925
    ...C. C. A. 432, 187 F. 104; United States v. Illinois Terminal R. Co., 168 F. 546; Belt R. Co. of Chicago v. United States, 93 C. C. A. 666, 168 F. 542, 22 L. R. A. (N. S.) 582; United States v. Standard Oil Co. of Indiana, 155 F. 305; United States v. Chicago Great Western Ry. Co., [138 Miss......
  • United States v. State of California, No. 33
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • February 3, 1936
    ...of the cars and their contents, the method of fixing the charge is unimportant. Belt Railway Co. of Chicago v. United States (C.C.A.) 168 F. 542, 544, 22 L.R.A.(N.S.) 582; see United States v. Union Stock Yard & Transit Co., 226 U.S. 286, 299, 300, 33 S.Ct. 83, 57 L.Ed. 226. And while maint......
  • Watson v. St. Louis, I.M. & S. Ry. Co., 211.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 8th Circuit. United States State District Court of Eastern District of Arkansas
    • June 1, 1909
    ...Co. (C.C.A.) 169 F. 407; Union Stock Yards Co. v. United States (C.C.A.) 169 F. 404; Belt R. Co. of Chicago v. United States (C.C.A.) 168 F. 542; Wabash R. Co. v. United States (C.C.A.) 168 F. 1. The constitutionality of the bankruptcy acts of Congress has at different times been questioned......
  • Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. City of Memphis
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Tennessee
    • July 6, 1936
    ...of the cars and their contents, the method of fixing the charge is unimportant. Belt Railway Co. of Chicago v. United States (C.C.A.) 168 F. 542, 544, 22 L.R.A. (N.S.) 582; see United States v. Union Stock Yard & Transit Co., 226 U.S. 286, 299, 300, 33 S.Ct. 83, 57 L.Ed. 226. And while main......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
15 cases
  • Mississippi Cent R. Co. v. Knight, 24615
    • United States
    • Mississippi Supreme Court
    • March 30, 1925
    ...C. C. A. 432, 187 F. 104; United States v. Illinois Terminal R. Co., 168 F. 546; Belt R. Co. of Chicago v. United States, 93 C. C. A. 666, 168 F. 542, 22 L. R. A. (N. S.) 582; United States v. Standard Oil Co. of Indiana, 155 F. 305; United States v. Chicago Great Western Ry. Co., [138 Miss......
  • United States v. State of California, No. 33
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • February 3, 1936
    ...of the cars and their contents, the method of fixing the charge is unimportant. Belt Railway Co. of Chicago v. United States (C.C.A.) 168 F. 542, 544, 22 L.R.A.(N.S.) 582; see United States v. Union Stock Yard & Transit Co., 226 U.S. 286, 299, 300, 33 S.Ct. 83, 57 L.Ed. 226. And while maint......
  • Watson v. St. Louis, I.M. & S. Ry. Co., 211.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 8th Circuit. United States State District Court of Eastern District of Arkansas
    • June 1, 1909
    ...Co. (C.C.A.) 169 F. 407; Union Stock Yards Co. v. United States (C.C.A.) 169 F. 404; Belt R. Co. of Chicago v. United States (C.C.A.) 168 F. 542; Wabash R. Co. v. United States (C.C.A.) 168 F. 1. The constitutionality of the bankruptcy acts of Congress has at different times been questioned......
  • Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. City of Memphis
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Tennessee
    • July 6, 1936
    ...of the cars and their contents, the method of fixing the charge is unimportant. Belt Railway Co. of Chicago v. United States (C.C.A.) 168 F. 542, 544, 22 L.R.A. (N.S.) 582; see United States v. Union Stock Yard & Transit Co., 226 U.S. 286, 299, 300, 33 S.Ct. 83, 57 L.Ed. 226. And while main......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT