St. Louis Southwestern Ry. Co. v. United States
| Citation | 183 F. 770 |
| Decision Date | 20 December 1910 |
| Docket Number | 1,941. |
| Parties | ST. LOUIS SOUTHWESTERN RY. CO. v. UNITED STATES. |
| Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (5th Circuit) |
On Rehearing, January 10, 1911.
S. P. Ross, for plaintiff in error.
Chas. A. Boynton and P. J. Doherty, for the United States.
Before PARDEE and SHELBY, Circuit Judges.
The judgment of the District Court is affirmed.
On Rehearing.
The hauling by any carrier engaged in interstate commerce of a car not furnished with the safety appliances required by the laws of the United States is a violation of the statute, which entitles the United States to recover a penalty of $100; and as this penalty attaches for each and every such violation, it is recoverable for each and every car not furnished with the requisite safety appliances hauled in violation of the act.
Whether the hauling be of several cars by one act or by several acts is immaterial, so that if several cars, each without the requisite appliances, are hauled by the carrier at one and the same time, there are several distinct violations, for each and every of which the penalty is due and recoverable. See United States v. St. Louis & S.W. Ry. (No. 1,895 of this court, recently decided) 184 F. 28.
On reason and weight of authority it is considered that actions to recover the statutory penalties for violation of the safety appliance law (Act March 2, 1893, c. 196, 27 Stat. 531 (U.S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 3174)) are so far civil in their nature that the strict construction applicable in criminal proceedings is not required, and the United States may recover upon the preponderance of evidence, and the trial judge may in proper cases direct a verdict.
The petition for rehearing herein is denied.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Helvering v. Mitchell
...786; United States v. Louisville & N. Ry. Co., D.C.S.D.Ala., 162 F. 185, affirmed, 5 Cir., 174 F. 1021; St. Louis-South Western Ry. Co. v. United States, 5 Cir., 183 F. 770, 771; United States v. Illinois Cent. Ry. Co., 6 Cir., 170 F. 542, 545, 546; Atchison, T. & S.F. Ry. Co. v. United Sta......
-
United States v. Minneapolis, St. P. & S. S. M. Ry. Co.
...... States, 165 F. 833, 91 C.C.A. 519; United States v. Southern Pac. Co. (C.C.) 172 F. 909. For cases under the. Hours of Service Act, see St. Louis, etc., Ry. v. United. States, 183 F. 770, 106 C.C.A. 136; United States v. Kansas City & Southern Ry. Co., 202 F. 828, 832, 121. C.C.A. 136; ......
-
United States v. Kansas City Southern Ry. Co.
...... purposes may be effected. United States v. Kansas City. Southern Ry. Co. (D.C.) 189 F. 471; United States v. St. Louis Southwestern Ry. Co. of Texas (D.C.) 189 F. 954. The recovery is by a civil action, and the rules. governing civil procedure apply. St. Louis ......