Montana Cent. Ry. Co. v. United States

• Decision Date: 05 October 1908
• Docket Number: 1,558.
• Citation: 164 F. 400
• Parties: MONTANA CENT. RY. CO. v. UNITED STATES.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit

164 F. 400

MONTANA CENT. RY. CO. v. UNITED STATES.

No. 1,558.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

October 5, 1908

This action was brought by the government to enforce a penalty growing out of the alleged violation of Act Cong. June 29 1906, c. 3594, 34 Stat. 607 (U.S. Comp. St. Supp. 1907, p 918) to prevent cruelty to animals, commonly known as the 'Twenty-Eight Hour Law.' The plaintiff in error is a Montana corporation, and at the time in question owned and operated a railroad from a point near Great Falls to the city of Butte, in that state. Since the sole defense interposed by the defendant to the action is presented by its answer, a demurrer to which the court below sustained, the only question presented is as to the sufficiency of the answer. The facts set up by that pleading are that on the 23d of November, 1906, Corey Bros., of Montana, delivered to the defendant railway company about 60 horses, at its station of Armington, in that state, to be by it and its connecting carriers transported to Twin Falls in Idaho. The horses constituted part of a train load of live stock consisting of 41 cars. The loading of the train was commenced about 9 o'clock in the morning of the day mentioned; but although the loading of the train was conducted diligently and without negligence on the part of either the shippers or the carriers, it was not completed, and could not, with due diligence, have been completed, before 8 o'clock of the evening of that day.

Because of certain unavoidable delays, the train did not leave Armington until 7:30 a.m. of November 24th, at which time it started and was conducted with reasonable diligence and dispatch as far as the defendant company's station of Clancy, in Jefferson county, Mont., arriving at that station at 8 o'clock in the evening of November 24th-- the horses having then been in the cars of the defendant company for no greater period of time than 24 hours since the completion of the loading of the train at Armington. The train, including the cars containing the horses, was not unloaded at Clancy nor were the horses fed or watered there, and the train did not leave that station until 1 o'clock in the morning of November 25th, at which time the horses had been confined in the cars for a period of 29 hours since the loading of the train had been completed at Armington; nor was the train unloaded at the city of Butte until 10:30 o'clock a.m. of November 25th. The answer alleges that long prior to the time when the shipment in question was made the defendant company had duly issued a formal and printed circular known as 'Circular No. 1,149,' addressed to all its agents, in and by which the agents were notified of the precise provisions, conditions, and requirements of the act of Congress relating to the interstate transportation of animals, and required to conform strictly to all of its provisions; and the company had also, before the time of the shipment in question, issued a special typewritten circular, signed by its superintendent, and known as 'Circular No. 21,' addressed to all agents, yardmasters, and others concerned, in and by which last-mentioned circular the company again gave notice to each of its employes of the precise requirements of the said act of Congress, and required strict and full compliance with all of its provisions by each of its employes, a copy of both of which circulars the company caused to be placed on all bulletin boards at each of its terminals, for the information, guidance, and instruction of all trainmen and other employes in any way connected with the loading, unloading or transportation of live stock, or the operation of trains containing such stock. The answer also alleges that the defendant company necessarily intrusted the control and movement of all trains, including the one containing the horses in question, to the supervision and direction of its chief dispatchers and assistant dispatchers at Great Falls, Mont., where its principal office and its division headquarters are located, and alleges that said dispatchers had, long before the time of the shipment in question, been furnished with a printed copy of the said act of Congress, and had been directed in writing to at all times conform to the provisions of that statute, and to so direct and control the movement of live stock trains as to always insure the unloading of live stock for rest, feed, and water in the manner and within the periods prescribed by the said law; that through the oversight, forgetfulness, and unintentional neglect of the said dispatchers, and not otherwise, no notice was given to the company's agent at the station of Clancy that a train containing live stock was being transported over the company's railroad, and no authority or direction was given by any of the said dispatchers for the unloading of the said stock at the said station; that the said live stock was under those circumstances confined on the defendant company's cars for a longer period than 28 hours without being unloaded for rest, water, and feeding, and that the failure to so unload was not prevented by storm or other accidental or unavoidable causes which could not have been anticipated or avoided by the exercise of due diligence and foresight on the part of the defendant company's employes, nor were the said animals carried in cars in...