Great Northern Ry. Co. v. United States
| Decision Date | 24 February 1914 |
| Docket Number | 2310. |
| Citation | 211 F. 309 |
| Parties | GREAT NORTHERN RY. CO. v. UNITED STATES. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
The plaintiff in error, a corporation organized and doing business under the laws of the state of Minnesota, and acting as a common carrier engaged in interstate commerce by railroad in the state of Idaho, was charged in the complaint filed by the United States Attorney in the court below with having violated an act of Congress approved March 4, 1907 entitled 'An act to promote the safety of employes and travelers upon railroads by limiting the hours of service of employes thereon' (34 Stat. 1415), by requiring and permitting its certain employe and fireman, Ed. Bergen, to be and remain on duty as such employe and fireman upon its line of railroad at and between the stations of Hillyard, in the state of Washington, and Laclede, in the state of Idaho, for a longer period than 16 hours, to wit, from the hour of 6 o'clock a.m. on July 10, 1912, to the hour of 6 o'clock a.m. on July 11, 1912.
The case was tried in the court below upon an agreed statement of facts, from which it appeared that Ed. Bergen, the employe and fireman named in the complaint, had entered upon his duties as such fireman upon one of the locomotives of the railroad company, at Hillyard, Wash., on July 10, 1912, at the hour of 6 o'clock a.m.; that said locomotive, after being attached to a freight train of the railroad company engaged in the movement of interstate commerce, left Hillyard, Wash., at said hour, and proceeded eastward over the Spokane division of the railroad company, and arrived at Laclede, Idaho, at 9:59 p.m. on that date; that throughout the movement and operation of the locomotive and freight train from Hillyard, Wash., to Laclede, Idaho, and during the whole of that time, the fireman, Ed. Bergen, was engaged in firing the locomotive, without interruption or rest, and without being off duty as such employe and fireman.
It further appeared from the agreed statement of facts that upon arriving at Laclede, Idaho, at 9:59 p.m. on July 10, 1912 the locomotive and freight train were run onto a siding leading out of and into the main line of the railroad company, the whole of the freight train and locomotive occupying the siding, leaving the main line of the railroad free and clear for the unobstructed movement of trains passing along the main line; that the switches at each end of the siding were then locked and thereafter remained locked in such position that the freight train and locomotive could not leave such position, and no train could proceed from the main line to or upon the siding; that the brakes on the locomotive and freight train were set so that the same could not be moved unless the brakes should be released; that thereupon the crew of the locomotive and freight train, other than the employe and fireman, Ed. Bergen, retired to rest upon the freight train, and the orders of the freight train and locomotive, constituting the orders under which they had a right to proceed or move, were annulled.
The stipulated facts also showed that after the locomotive and freight train were placed on the siding and tied up as above set forth, and up to and until 6 o'clock a.m. on July 11 1912, the fireman and employe, Ed. Burgen, remained on the locomotive continuously, during which time he was on duty as an engine watchman, and was charged with performing and did perform no other duties or work other than the duties and work of an engine watchman.
The court below found for the plaintiff and against the railroad company, and assessed the fine of the latter at $100. A judgment was thereafter entered against the railroad company for that amount.
F. V Brown, of Seattle, Wash., E. C. Lindley, of St. Paul, Minn., and Charles S. Albert and Thomas Balmer both of Spokane, Wash., for plaintiff in error.
C. H. Lingenfelter, U.S. Atty., of Boise, Idaho.
Before GILBERT, ROSS, and MORROW, Circuit Judges.
MORROW Circuit Judge (after stating the facts as above).
The act of Congress of March 4, 1907, so far as it is applicable to this case, provides as follows:
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Jopek v. NEW YORK CENTRAL RAILROAD COMPANY, 15241.
...on the days in question, then this case would fall under the Act. United States v. Great No. Ry., 206 F. 838 (D.Idaho, 1913), aff'd, 211 F. 309 (C.A.9, 1914), cert. denied, 234 U.S. 760, 34 S.Ct. 776, 58 L.Ed. 1580, see also Baltimore & O. R. R. v. ICC, 221 U.S. 612, 619, 31 S.Ct. 621, 55 L......
-
United States v. Detroit, Toledo and Ironton Railroad Co.
...immaterial. Baltimore & Ohio R. Co. v. Interstate Commerce Commission, 221 U.S. 612, 31 S.Ct. 621, 55 L.Ed. 878; Great Northern Ry. Co. v. United States, 9th Cir., 211 F. 309. Short interruptions in service do not break the continuity of on duty time. Time off duty to break that continuity ......
- United States v. Great Northern Ry. Co.
-
Jones v. Louisville & N.R. Co.
...by the act, and was therefore subject to its operation." In affirming the judgment of the District Court, the Circuit Court of Appeals (211 F. 309) held that Bergen's in watching the engine were in effect the same as those he performed as fireman, stating that in no sense or particular were......