Mellon v. Minneapolis, St. P. & SSM Ry. Co.

Decision Date01 February 1926
Docket NumberNo. 4273.,4273.
PartiesMELLON, Secretary of the Treasury of the United States, v. MINNEAPOLIS, ST. P. & S. S. M. RY. CO. et al.
CourtU.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.

VAN ORSDEL, Associate Justice.

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 casean 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: "Before any such special license to unlade shall be granted, the master, owner, or agent of such vessel or vehicle shall be required to give a bond in a penal sum to be fixed by the collector conditioned to indemnify the United States for any loss or liability which might occur or be occasioned by reason of the granting of such special license and to pay the compensation and expenses of the customs officers and employees whose services are required in connection with such unlading at night or on Sunday or a holiday in accordance with the provisions of section 5 of the act entitled `An act to provide for the lading or unlading of vessels at night, the preliminary entry of vessels, and for other purposes,' approved February 13, 1911, as amended. In lieu of such bond the owner, or agent, of any vessel or vehicle or line of vessels or vehicles may execute a bond in a penal sum to be fixed by the Secretary of the Treasury to cover and include the issuance of special licenses for the unlading of vessels or vehicles belonging to such line for a period of one year from the date thereof."

Section 5 of the act of February 13, 1911, as amended by the act of February 7, 1920, reads as follows: "That the Secretary of the Treasury shall fix a reasonable rate of extra compensation for overtime services of inspectors, storekeepers, weighers, and other customs officers and employees who may be required to remain on duty between the hours of five o'clock post meridian and eight o'clock ante meridian, or on Sundays or holidays, to perform services in connection with the lading or unlading of cargo, or the lading of cargo or merchandise for transportation in bond or for exportation in bond or for exportation with benefit of drawback, or in connection with the receiving or delivery of cargo on or from the wharf, or in connection with the unlading, receiving, or examination of passengers' baggage, such rates to be fixed on the basis of one-half day's additional pay for each two hours or fraction thereof of at least one hour that the overtime extends beyond 5 o'clock post meridian (but not to exceed two and one-half days' pay for the full period from 5 o'clock post meridian to 8 o'clock ante meridian), and two additional days' pay for Sunday or holiday duty. The said extra compensation shall be paid by the master, owner, agent, or consignee of such vessel or other conveyance whenever such special license or permit for immediate lading or unlading or for lading or unlading at night or on...

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 cases
  • International Ry. Co. v. Davidson
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Western District of New York
    • 14 June 1945
    ...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
    • United States
    • U.S. Claims Court
    • 19 April 1968
    ...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
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of Illinois
    • 15 June 1977
    ...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
    • United States
    • U.S. Supreme Court
    • 3 January 1944
    ...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. ...

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