St. Joseph Stockyards Co. v. United States
| Decision Date | 20 April 1911 |
| Docket Number | 3,319-3,321. |
| Parties | ST. JOSEPH STOCKYARDS CO. v. UNITED STATES (three cases). |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit |
Syllabus by the Court.
A special finding in a case in the Circuit Court in which a jury is waived becomes a part of the record, like a special verdict, and the question of its sufficiency to sustain the judgment arises, without contemporaneous objection or exception, and no bill of exceptions is requisite to present it.
The words 'knowingly and willfully,' in section 3 of the 28-hour law (Act June 29, 1906, c. 3594, 34 Stat. 607 (U.S Comp. St. Supp. 1907, p. 918; Supp. 1909, p. 1178)), describe an essential element of the offense on account of which the penalties are prescribed, without proof of which they cannot be recovered.
Brown & Dolman, for plaintiff in error.
Leslie J. Lyons, U.S. Atty.
Before SANBORN and ADAMS, Circuit Judges, and WM. H. MUNGER District judge.
The writs of error in these cases question three judgments each for a penalty of $100, for the alleged violation of the 28-hour law. Act June 29, 1906, c. 3594, 34 Stat. 607 (U.S. Comp. St. Supp. 1907, p. 918; Supp. 1909, p. 1178). Juries were waived, and the cases were tried by the court, which made a special finding of the facts, and rendered a judgment against the Stockyards Company in each case.
Counsel for the United States contends that the question whether or not the special findings sustain the judgments cannot be considered in this court, under Rogers v. United States, 141 U.S. 548, 12 Sup.Ct. 91, 35 L.Ed. 853, and United States v. Cleage, 88 C.C.A. 249, 161 F. 85, because these cases were tried in the District Court. But he is mistaken. They were commenced, were tried, and the judgments were rendered in the Circuit Court, and in such a case the special finding, like a special verdict, becomes a part of the record, and the question of its sufficiency to sustain the judgment arises, without contemporaneous objection or exception, in the absence of a bill of exceptions to present them. St. Louis v. Ferry Company, 78 U.S. 423, 428, 20 L.Ed. 192; Norris v. Jackson, 76 U.S. 125, 128, 19 L.Ed. 608.
This court has often had occasion to consider the 28-hour law, and from its previous decisions these conclusions may be safely drawn. Section 1 of this statute imposes upon every railroad company carrying cattle from one state to another the duty to unload them for rest, water, and feeding once in 28 hours, in the absence of a request for an extension of this time to 36 hours; and section 3 of the act imposes penalties for which these judgments were rendered, not for a failure to discharge the duty prescribed by section 1, but for 'knowingly and willfully' failing to discharge it. United States v. Union Pacific R. Co., 94 C.C.A. 433, 434, 169 F. 65, 66.
The words 'knowingly and willfully' in this statute have significance, and in the enforcement of it they must have effect. "Knowingly' evidently means with a knowledge of the facts which, taken together, constitute the failure to comply with the statute, as is the case where one carrier receives from another a car loaded with cattle, and, with knowledge of how long they then had been confined in the car without rest, water, or food, prolongs the confinement until the statutory limit is exceeded. * * * ' Willfully' means purposely or obstinately, and is designed to describe the attitude of a carrier, who, having a free will or choice, either intentionally disregards the statute or is plainly indifferent to its requirements. ' St. Louis & S.F.R. Co. v. United States, 94 C.C.A. 437, 439, 169 F. 69, 71; United States v. Sioux City Stockyards Co. (C.C.) 162 F. 556, 560, 562; United States v. Stockyards Terminal Co. (C.C.) 172 F. 452; New York Central & H.R.R. Co. v. United States, 165 F. 833, 841, 91 C.C.A. 519, 527.
In United States v. Stockyards Terminal Ry. Company, 101 C.C.A. 147, 151, 178 F. 19, 23, a stockyards company had received from a railroad company cattle that had been confined in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Mississippi Cent R. Co. v. Knight
... ... Louisiana. It carried a United States mail car and messenger, ... with mail in pouches put on at ... Attorney General v. Union ... Stockyards & Transit Co. of Chicago, 192 F. 330; St ... Joseph Stockyards Co. v ... ...
-
Fred Meyer, Inc. v. FTC
...136 F.2d 125, 128; Fidelity & Deposit Co. of Maryland v. Grand Nat'l Bank, 8 Cir., 1934, 69 F.2d 177, 183; St. Joseph Stockyard Co. v. United States, 8 Cir., 1911, 187 F. 104, 106. 16 Meyer claims that the Commission was not entitled to rely on the material which we have quoted from its sol......
-
United States v. LO BUE BROTHERS, 16230.
...for penalties under section 3. United States v. Stockyards Terminal Ry. Co., supra, 8 Cir., 178 F. 19, 23. St. Joseph Stockyards Co. v. United States, supra, 8 Cir., 187 F. 104, 105. Oregon-Washington R. & Nav. Co. v. United States, 9 Cir., 205 F. 337, 339. St. Louis Merchants\' Bridge Term......
-
Chicago Great Western R. Co. v. Le Valley
...233 F. 384 CHICAGO GREAT WESTERN R. CO. v. LE VALLEY. No. 4459.United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.April 18, 1916 ... question counsel cite St. Joseph Stockyards Company v ... United States, 187 F. 104, 105, 110 C.C.A. 432, ... ...