St. Joseph Stockyards Co. v. United States, 3,319-3,321.

CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit
Citation187 F. 104
Decision Date20 April 1911
PartiesST. JOSEPH STOCKYARDS CO. v. UNITED STATES (three cases).
Docket Number3,319-3,321.

187 F. 104

ST. JOSEPH STOCKYARDS CO.
v.
UNITED STATES (three cases).

Nos. 3,319-3,321.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

April 20, 1911


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. [187 F. 105]

Before SANBORN and ADAMS, Circuit Judges, and WM. H. MUNGER, District judge.

SANBORN, Circuit 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...

To continue reading

Request your trial
25 practice notes
  • Mississippi Cent R. Co. v. Knight, 24615
    • United States
    • Mississippi Supreme Court
    • March 30, 1925
    ...Attorney General v. Union Stockyards & Transit Co. of Chicago, 192 F. 330; St. Joseph Stockyards Co. v. United States, 110 C. C. A. 432, 187 F. 104; United States v. Illinois Terminal R. Co., 168 F. 546; Belt R. Co. of Chicago v. United States, 93 C. C. A. 666, 168 F. 542, 22 L. R. A. (N. S......
  • Fred Meyer, Inc. v. FTC, No. 18903.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (9th Circuit)
    • June 8, 1966
    ...& 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, 16 Meyer claims that the Commission was not entitled to rely on the material which we have quoted from its solicitations for participation for ......
  • United States v. LO BUE BROTHERS, No. 16230.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (9th Circuit)
    • December 21, 1959
    ...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 Terminal Ry. Co. v. United State......
  • Chicago Great Western R. Co. v. Le Valley, 4459.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (8th Circuit)
    • April 18, 1916
    ...to review the ruling. In support of an affirmative answer to this question counsel cite St. Joseph Stockyards Company v. United States, 187 F. 104, 105, 110 C.C.A. 432, 433; but the question here at issue was not presented or decided in that case, for the issue there was whether or not a sp......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
25 cases
  • Mississippi Cent R. Co. v. Knight, 24615
    • United States
    • Mississippi Supreme Court
    • March 30, 1925
    ...Attorney General v. Union Stockyards & Transit Co. of Chicago, 192 F. 330; St. Joseph Stockyards Co. v. United States, 110 C. C. A. 432, 187 F. 104; United States v. Illinois Terminal R. Co., 168 F. 546; Belt R. Co. of Chicago v. United States, 93 C. C. A. 666, 168 F. 542, 22 L. R. A. (N. S......
  • Fred Meyer, Inc. v. FTC, No. 18903.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (9th Circuit)
    • June 8, 1966
    ...& 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, 16 Meyer claims that the Commission was not entitled to rely on the material which we have quoted from its solicitations for participation for ......
  • United States v. LO BUE BROTHERS, No. 16230.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (9th Circuit)
    • December 21, 1959
    ...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 Terminal Ry. Co. v. United State......
  • Chicago Great Western R. Co. v. Le Valley, 4459.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (8th Circuit)
    • April 18, 1916
    ...to review the ruling. In support of an affirmative answer to this question counsel cite St. Joseph Stockyards Company v. United States, 187 F. 104, 105, 110 C.C.A. 432, 433; but the question here at issue was not presented or decided in that case, for the issue there was whether or not a sp......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

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