Mellon v. Minneapolis, St. P. & SSM Ry. Co.
Decision Date | 01 February 1926 |
Docket Number | No. 4273.,4273. |
Parties | MELLON, Secretary of the Treasury of the United States, v. MINNEAPOLIS, ST. P. & S. S. M. RY. CO. et al. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit |
Peyton Gordon, V. E. West, and J. P. Crawford, all of Washington, D. C., for appellant.
J. C. Adkins, J. I. Peyser, and T. D. Peyser, all of Washington, D. C., for appellees.
Before MARTIN, Chief Justice, and ROBB and VAN ORSDEL, Associate Justices.
On May 16, 1921, appellee Minneapolis, St. Paul & Sault Sainte Marie Railway Company filed a bill in equity in the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia to enjoin the Secretary of the Treasury from requiring it to pay extra compensation for overtime services of customs inspectors, in connection with the unlading, receiving, or examination of passengers' baggage at points on the international boundary between Canada and the United States, under authority of the Act of Congress of February 13, 1911, § 5, 36 Stat. 901, as amended by the Act of Congress of February 7, 1920, 41 Stat. 402 (Comp. St. Ann. Supp. 1923, § 5571). The court granted the injunction and on appeal to this court the decree was affirmed. Mellon v. Minneapolis, St. Paul & Sault Sainte Marie Railway, 285 F. 980, 52 App. D. C. 246.
The Secretary of the Treasury, acting under the authority assumed to be conferred upon him by the Tariff Act of September 21, 1922, 42 Stat. 858, undertook to collect the extra compensation for overtime services in disregard of the existing decree. Whereupon the appellee Minneapolis, St. Paul & Sault Sainte Marie Railway Company, on February 29, 1925, filed in the original suit a supplemental petition, praying for an injunction to restrain the Secretary from enforcing such collection. An intervening petition was filed by the New York Central Railroad Company, Michigan Central Railway Company, Vermont Central Railway, Boston & Maine Railroad, Rutland Railroad Company, Delaware & Hudson Company, Great Northern Railroad Company, Northern Pacific Railway Company, Wabash Railway Company, and Spokane International Railway Company, praying similar relief. Motions to dismiss the supplemental and intervening petitions were interposed, which were denied, and, the Secretary electing to stand on these motions, a final decree was entered as prayed in the petitions. From this decree the case comes here on appeal.
The facts, briefly stated, are that the appellee railroads operate passenger trains, crossing the international boundary from Canada into the United States, and the injunction is to prevent the threatened withdrawal of services at night, on Sundays and holidays, unless appellees pay the extra compensation of customs inspectors for overtime services.
It is urged that, inasmuch as the opinion of this court, affirming the decree of the court below in the original case, was not rendered until January 19, 1923, the decree in the original case became final after the passage of the Tariff Act of 1922, and, since the decree looks only to the future, it is binding upon the Secretary, regardless of the provisions of the Tariff Act. It is sufficient answer that the provisions of the Tariff Act were not called to the attention of the court in the original case; hence the decree had reference only to the act of 1911, as amended by the act of 1920, and would accordingly remain operative only for the purpose of enjoining the collection of compensation during the period those particular acts remained unmodified and in force.
This brings us to the real question involved in this case — an interpretation of sections 450 and 451 of the Tariff Act (Comp. St. Ann. Supp. 1923, §§ 5841e19, 5841e20), in connection with section 5 of the act of February 7, 1920.
Section 450 of the Tariff Act provides as follows: "No merchandise, baggage, or passengers arriving in the United States from any foreign port or place, and no bonded merchandise or baggage being transported from one port to another, shall be unladen from the carrying vessel or vehicle on Sunday, a holiday, or at night, except under special license granted by the collector under such regulations as the Secretary of the Treasury may prescribe."
Section 451, provides as follows:
Section 5 of the act of February 13, 1911, as amended by the act of February 7, 1920, reads as follows: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
International Ry. Co. v. Davidson
...819; State of Pennsylvania v. Wheeling & Belmont Bridge Co., 18 How. 421, 59 U.S. 421, 15 L.Ed. 435; Mellon v. Minneapolis, St. P. & S. S. M. R. Co., 56 App.D.C. 160, 11 F.2d 332; John B. Stetson Co. v. Stephen L. Stetson Co., 2 Cir., 128 F.2d 981; Western Union Tel. Co. v. International Br......
-
Delano v. United States
...for all overtime accumulated incidental to inspection of its passengers after 5 p. m., see generally Mellon v. Minneapolis, St. P. & S.S.M. Ry. Co., 56 App.D.C. 160, 11 F.2d 332, cert. den. 271 U.S. 678, 46 S.Ct. 630, 70 L.Ed. 1147 (1926); Port Huron & Sarnia Ferry Co. v. Lawson, 292 F. 216......
-
Bearce v. United States
...ed. 1971). And it agrees with what courts other than those of Illinois have said on the subject. See Mellon v. Minneapolis, St. P. & S.S.M. Ry. Co., 56 App.D.C. 160, 11 F.2d 332, 334 (1926); Wright v. Sniffin, 80 Cal.App.2d 358, 181 P.2d 675, 677 The term "motor vehicle" suggests the idea o......
-
United States v. Myers United States v. Arble United States v. Martin United States v. Plitz United States v. Spitz 8212 146
...was deemed significant as to railroads. Compare Mellon v. Minneapolis Ry., 52 App.D.C. 246, 285 F. 980, with Mellon v. Minneapolis Ry., 56 App.D.C. 160, 11 F.2d 332, 334. ...