Erie R. Co. v. United States
| Decision Date | 11 November 1912 |
| Docket Number | 30. |
| Citation | 200 F. 406 |
| Parties | ERIE R. CO. v. UNITED STATES. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit |
Moot Sprague, Brownell & Marcy, of Buffalo, N.Y. (John W. Ryan, of Buffalo, N.Y., of counsel), for plaintiff in error.
John Lord O'Brian, U.S. Atty., of Buffalo, N.Y.
Before LACOMBE, COXE, and WARD, Circuit Judges.
The action is brought under the so-called 28-hour law of 1873 (Act March 3, 1873, c. 252, 17 Stat. 584; Act June 29, 1906 c. 3594, 34 Stat. 607 (U.S. Comp. St. Supp. 1909, p. 1178)) entitled 'An act to prevent cruelty to animals while in transit by railroad, etc.,' which provides that cattle sheep, etc., shall not be confined in railroad cars for a longer period than 28 consecutive hours (or upon written request of the owner 36 consecutive hours) without unloading the same in a humane manner into properly equipped pens for rest, water, and feeding for a period of at least 5 consecutive hours. The cattle in this case were confined for 65 consecutive hours, and the only question in the case arises upon the construction of the third section of the statute. This relieves the railroad from the obligation of complying with the provisions as to unloading-- 'when animals are carried in cars in which they can and do have proper food, water, space and opportunity to rest.'
These animals were transported in cars specially arranged so as to secure to them, concededly, proper food and water. The number and weights of the cattle in each car are shown in the record. There is some dispute as to the space that a single animal would occupy when lying down; but that is immaterial, because it is admitted in the brief of plaintiff in error that in three out of four cars there was not space sufficient to allow all the animals to lie down at the same time. In one of the cars two animals would be left without sufficient space to lie down; in each of two other cars one animal would be in like condition; in the other car all could lie down at once; but the shipment is to be considered as a whole, and if the law were violated in any single car of this shipment the penalty imposed by the statute would be incurred.
The only question in the case is whether the circumstance that all the cattle in a car cannot obtain rest by lying down at the same time will prevent a railroad from availing itself of the provisions of the third section, when the car is so large that, if the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Missouri Pacific Railroad Company v. Burnett
...from compliance with the statute. U. S. Comp. Statutes, 1918, §§ 8651 and 8653. See also 205 F. 337; 200 F. 597; 186 F. 541; 195 F. 241; 200 F. 406; 225 F. 676; 258 F. 289; 220 U.S. 94; 97 Ark. 82. The or bill of lading was binding. It could not be explained or varied by parol testimony. 8 ......
-
United States v. Boston & MRR
...an opportunity to lie down, and the space must be sufficient so that all the animals may lie down at the same time. Erie R. R. Co. v. United States, 2 Cir., 200 F. 406, 408; United States v. Powell, 4 Cir., 65 F.2d 793. Lacombe, C. J., in Erie R. R. Co. v. United States, supra, makes clear ......
-
Northern Pac. Ry. Co. v. Finch
...225 F. 676 NORTHERN PAC. RY. CO. v. FINCH et al. United States District Court, D. North Dakota.August 30, 1915 [225 F. 677] ... E. T ... rest,' as used in the statute, means opportunity to lie ... down. Erie R.R. Co. v. U.S., 200 F. 406, 118 C.C.A ... The ... motion for new trial will be ... ...
-
United States v. Powell, 3442.
..."and opportunity to rest" clearly mean, in the case of cattle, an opportunity to lie down, was held in the case of Erie R. Co. v. United States (C. C. A.) 200 F. 406; and in Northern Pacific Ry. Co. v. Finch et al. (D. C.) 225 F. 676, the same ruling was made with regard to We agree with th......