Powell v. United States
Decision Date | 10 June 1940 |
Docket Number | No. 4597.,4597. |
Citation | 112 F.2d 764 |
Parties | POWELL et al. v. UNITED STATES. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit |
Murray Allen, of Raleigh, N. C., and Joseph F. Johnston, of Norfolk, Va., for appellants.
H. L. Maine, Sp. Asst. to U. S. Atty., of Wilmington, N. C. (James O. Carr, U. S. Atty., of Wilmington, N. C., John H. Manning, Asst. U. S. Atty., of Raleigh, N. C., and Charles F. Rouse, Asst. U. S. Atty., of Kinston, N. C., on the brief), for appellee.
Before PARKER, SOPER, and DOBIE, Circuit Judges.
Appellants, in their capacity as receivers of the Seaboard Air Line Railway Company, were indicted in the court below, along with the Atlantic and North Carolina Railroad Company and the receivers of the Norfolk Southern Railroad Company, for violation of section 1 of the Elkins Act, 49 U.S.C.A. § 41, in failing to observe their published tariffs in connection with a shipment of scrap iron for export from Goldsboro, N. C. to Wilmington, N. C. The other defendants entered pleas of nolo contendere and were fined $1,000 each. Appellants waived jury trial, and, upon being found guilty by the judge, were fined the same amount. The sole question presented by the appeal is the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the conviction; but this must be considered in connection with three contentions of appellants: (1) That the shipment was one in intrastate and not interstate or foreign commerce, (2) that the violation of the act was not wilful, and (3) that the receivers were not chargeable with responsibility therefor.
The shipment of scrap iron was made in July 1936 from Goldsboro to Wilmington, which is 84 miles distant by direct route. The shipment was not made over this direct route, however, which was the line of the Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Company, but over the Atlantic and North Carolina to New Bern, N. C., over the Norfolk & Southern from New Bern to Raleigh, N. C., and over the Seaboard Air Line from Raleigh to Wilmington, a total distance of 401 miles. The rate collected was $1.45 per hundred pounds, which was the rate for shipment by direct route from Goldsboro to Wilmington of both interstate and intrastate shipments. The interstate tariffs provided that the $1.45 rate was applicable only over lines where the haul did not exceed 153 miles. As the haul here exceeded 400 miles, it had no application; and the rate applicable under the tariffs was $2.50 per hundred.
The shipment was made by the Goldsboro Iron and Metal Company in the name of B. Schwartz to Schwartz under an order notify bill of lading. Prior to shipment, Schwartz had contracted to sell the scrap iron, subject to inspection, to Luria Bros.; and they in turn had contracted to sell it to Mit Sui & Company, a Japanese firm. Schwartz testified that this car of scrap iron was purchased for export under his contract with Luria Bros. The shipping order contained on its face the notation, "for export". A like notation was entered on the way bill which came into possession of the agents of appellants; and the freight receipt which they issued bore a like annotation. That the shipment was regarded by all parties as one in interstate or foreign commerce is shown by the fact that the agents of appellants assessed on the shipment certain emergency charges (known as "increased rate" or "IR"), applicable at that time only on shipments in interstate or foreign commerce and not on intrastate transportation. Upon its arrival in Wilmington, the carload of scrap iron was promptly loaded into the S. S. Helgoy, which had been chartered by Luria Bros., and which cleared from Wilmington for Japan with a cargo of scrap iron for the account of Mit Sui & Company.
There can be no question but that this evidence was sufficient to sustain a finding by the court that the shipment from Goldsboro to Wilmington was but a step in the transportation of the scrap iron to its real and ultimate destination in a foreign country. The case is not one of shipment to a point of collection or distribution, where the original movement comes to an end and further transportation depends upon sale or other circumstance. The journey in foreign commerce had commenced, and the mere fact that transfer of title at the port was contemplated and that inspection with right of rejection was provided for, did not change its essential character. Directly in point, we think, is the case of Texas & N. O. R. Co. v. Sabine Tram Co., 227 U.S. 111, 33 S.Ct. 229, 234, 57 L.Ed. 442, a case involving a shipment of lumber from an inland point in Texas to the port of Sabine, Texas, for export. In holding that the fact that a foreign destination was intended at the time of shipment was determinative, and that the character of the shipment as being one in foreign commerce was not affected by the fact that it was shipped to the exporter under an order notify bill of lading or that the original shipper had no further control over it after its arrival at the port of Sabine, the court said:
Also directly in point, although involving import rather than export, is United States v. Erie R. Co., 280 U.S. 98, 50 S.Ct. 51, 52, 74 L.Ed. 187. The movement there was from the port of Hoboken, N. J. to Garfield, N. J. A shipment of wood pulp had been purchased in a foreign country through a broker. It was shipped to the broker as part of a larger shipment. The broker had it taken from the vessel at Hoboken and shipped by rail to Garfield under new and local bills of lading. Title did not pass to the purchaser until shipment by the broker at Hoboken. In holding the shipment one in foreign commerce to which the interstate rates prescribed by the Interstate Commerce Commission were applicable, the court said: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
United States v. Custer Channel Wing Corporation
...that there be an evil intent to commit the offense, but that it is sufficient if the act was done knowingly." Powell v. United States, 112 F.2d 764, 767 (4th Cir. 1940). See Armour Packing Co. v. United States, 209 U.S. 56, 28 S.Ct. 428, 52 L.Ed. 681 (1908), quoted extensively by Judge Park......
-
United States v. Werner
...might be even more reliable." 7 Walling v. Jacksonville Paper Company, 317 U.S. 564, 63 S.Ct. 332, 87 L. Ed. 460. 8 Powell v. United States, 4 Cir., 112 F.2d 764, 766; Shellabarger Elevator Co. v. Illinois Central R. Co., 278 Ill. 333, 116 N.E. 170, L.R.A.1917E, 1011; Ingalls v. Maine Centr......
-
Great Northern Railway Company v. Thompson
...Similar contentions have been raised in numerous other cases and uniformly rejected by the courts. In Powell et al. v. United States, (4 Cir.) 112 F.2d 764, at pages 765 and 766, the court "There can be no question but that this evidence was sufficient to sustain a finding by the court that......
-
Finn v. United States, 7372.
...in the prohibited conduct. Armour Packing Co. v. United States, 1908, 209 U.S. 56, 85, 28 S.Ct. 428, 52 L.Ed. 681; Powell v. United States, 4 Cir., 1940, 112 F.2d 764, 767; United States v. Saglietto, D.C.E.D.Va. 1941, 41 F.Supp. 21, In dealing with a simple act like using profane language,......