Missouri, Kansas Texas Railway Company of Texas v. United States, No. 439
| Court | United States Supreme Court |
| Writing for the Court | Holmes |
| Citation | 58 L.Ed. 144,34 S.Ct. 26,231 U.S. 112 |
| Parties | MISSOURI, KANSAS, & TEXAS RAILWAY COMPANY OF TEXAS and American Surety Company of New York, Petitioners, v. UNITED STATES |
| Docket Number | No. 439 |
| Decision Date | 10 November 1913 |
v.
UNITED STATES.
Messrs. Joseph M. Bryson, Cecil H. Smith, Alexander S. Coke and A. H. McKnight for petitioners.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 112-116 intentionally omitted]
Page 116
Mr. Assistant Attorney General Denison for respondent.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 116-118 intentionally omitted]
Page 118
Mr. Justice Holmes delivered the opinion of the court:
This case brings up two suits that were consolidated and tried together, both being suits for penalties under the hours of service act of March 4, 1907, chap. 2939, 34 Stat. at L. 1415, U. S. Comp. Stat. Supp. 1911, p. 1321, for keeping employees on duty for more than sixteen consecutive hours. The main question is whether, when several persons thus are kept beyond the proper time by reason of the same delay of a train, a separate penalty is incurred for each, or only one for all. The circuit court of appeals decided for the government without discussion.
The petitioner cites many cases in favor of the proposition that generally, when one act has several consequences that the law seeks to prevent, the liability is attached to the act, and is but one. It argues that the delay of the train was such an act, and that the principle, which is a very old one, applies. Baltimore & O. S. W. R. Co. v. United States, 220 U. S. 94, 55 L. ed. 384, 31 Sup. Ct. Rep. 368. But unless the statute requires a different view, to call the delay of the train the act that produced the wrong is to beg the question. See Memphis & C. R. Co. v. Reeves, 10 Wall. 176, 19 L. ed. 909; Denny v. New York C. R. Co. 13 Gray, 481, 74 Am. Dec. 645. The statute was not violated by the delay. That may have made keeping the men overtime more likely, but was not in itself wrongful conduct quoad hoc. The wrongful act was keeping an employee at work overtime, and that act was distinct as to each employee so kept. Without stopping to consider whether this argument would be met by the proviso declaring a 'delay' in certain cases not to be within the statute, it is enough to observe that there is nothing to hinder making each consequence a separate cause of action or offense, if by its proper construction the law does so; see Flemister v. United States, 207 U. S. 372,
Page 119
375, 52 L. ed. 252...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Francis Wilson v. Alexander New, No. 797
...R. Co. v. Interstate Commerce Commission, 221 U. C. 612, 55 L. ed. 878, 31 Sup. Ct. Rep. 621; Missouri, K. & T. R. Co. v. United States, 231 U. S. 112, 58 L. ed. 144, 34 Sup. Ct. Rep. 26. 3 United States ex rel. Atty. Gen. v. Delaware & H. Co. 213 U. S. 366, 53 L. ed. 836, 29 Sup. Ct. Rep. ......
-
Staley v. Illinois Cent. R. Co., No. 9752.
...Ry. Co. v. Seale, 229 U. S. 156, 33 Sup. Ct. 651, 57 L. Ed. 1129, Ann. Cas. 1914C, 156;Missouri, Kansas & Texas R. Co. v. United States, 231 U. S. 112, 34 Sup. Ct. 26, 58 L. Ed. 144. The federal Employers' Liability Act will therefore control if it covers the identical subject-matter or the......
-
Busch v. L. & N. Railroad Co., No. 27098.
...v. Zachary, 232 U.S. 248; Geneva Mill Co. v. Andrews, 11 Fed. (2d) 924; Harvey v. Ry. Co., 116 Fed. 398; Ry. Co. v. United States, 231 U.S. 112; United States v. Ry. Co., 220 U.S. 37; Carter v. Railroad, 307 Mo. 595; Carter v. Railroad, 305 Mo. 595; Brook v. Railway Co., 305 Mo. 502; Railro......
-
Tennessee Coal, Iron Co v. Muscoda Local No 123 Steel Iron Co v. Sloss Red Ore Local No 109 Republic Steel Corporation v. Raimund Local No 121, SLOSS-SHEFFIELD
...in a 'process or occupation' necessary to actual production. They do more than 'stand and wait,' Missouri, K. & T.R. Co. v. United States, 231 U.S. 112, 119, 34 S.Ct. 26, 27, 58 L.Ed. 144. Cf. Bountiful Brick Co. v. Giles, 276 U.S. 154, 158, 48 S.Ct. 221, 222, 72 L.Ed. 507, 66 A.L.R. 1402. ......
-
Francis Wilson v. Alexander New, No. 797
...R. Co. v. Interstate Commerce Commission, 221 U. C. 612, 55 L. ed. 878, 31 Sup. Ct. Rep. 621; Missouri, K. & T. R. Co. v. United States, 231 U. S. 112, 58 L. ed. 144, 34 Sup. Ct. Rep. 26. 3 United States ex rel. Atty. Gen. v. Delaware & H. Co. 213 U. S. 366, 53 L. ed. 836, 29 Sup. Ct. Rep. ......
-
Staley v. Illinois Cent. R. Co., No. 9752.
...Ry. Co. v. Seale, 229 U. S. 156, 33 Sup. Ct. 651, 57 L. Ed. 1129, Ann. Cas. 1914C, 156;Missouri, Kansas & Texas R. Co. v. United States, 231 U. S. 112, 34 Sup. Ct. 26, 58 L. Ed. 144. The federal Employers' Liability Act will therefore control if it covers the identical subject-matter or the......
-
Busch v. L. & N. Railroad Co., No. 27098.
...v. Zachary, 232 U.S. 248; Geneva Mill Co. v. Andrews, 11 Fed. (2d) 924; Harvey v. Ry. Co., 116 Fed. 398; Ry. Co. v. United States, 231 U.S. 112; United States v. Ry. Co., 220 U.S. 37; Carter v. Railroad, 307 Mo. 595; Carter v. Railroad, 305 Mo. 595; Brook v. Railway Co., 305 Mo. 502; Railro......
-
Tennessee Coal, Iron Co v. Muscoda Local No 123 Steel Iron Co v. Sloss Red Ore Local No 109 Republic Steel Corporation v. Raimund Local No 121, SLOSS-SHEFFIELD
...in a 'process or occupation' necessary to actual production. They do more than 'stand and wait,' Missouri, K. & T.R. Co. v. United States, 231 U.S. 112, 119, 34 S.Ct. 26, 27, 58 L.Ed. 144. Cf. Bountiful Brick Co. v. Giles, 276 U.S. 154, 158, 48 S.Ct. 221, 222, 72 L.Ed. 507, 66 A.L.R. 1402. ......