United States v. Chicago & A.R. Co.
| Decision Date | 01 February 1918 |
| Docket Number | 2522. |
| Citation | 250 F. 101 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES v. CHICAGO & A.R. CO. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit |
Charles F. Clyne, of Chicago, Ill., and Roscoe F. Walter, of Washington, D.C., for the United States.
William L. Patton, of Springfield, Ill., for defendant in error.
Before KOHLSAAT, ALSCHULER, and EVANS, Circuit Judges.
The action was for recovery of penalty for alleged infraction of the safety appliance acts through moving a freight car in the Bloomington-Normal yards of defendant in error while the uncoupling apparatus was inoperative because the lock chain was disconnected from the uncoupling lever. The parties stipulated to waive jury and submit the cause to the court and that 'for all purposes of trial and review' the material facts are as in the stipulation stated. The District Court found for defendant in error.
The obligation to provide and maintain the statutory equipment has been so definitely held to be absolute, even where the lack of it was occasioned in no degree through want of care or diligence on the part of the carrier, that further discussion of the proposition would be profitless. Tex. & Pac. Ry. Co. v. Rigsby, 241 U.S. 33, 36 Sup.Ct. 482, 60 L.Ed. 874; C., B. & Q. Ry. v. United States, 220 U.S. 559, 31 Sup.Ct. 612, 55 L.Ed. 582; St. L. & I.M. Ry v. Taylor, 210 U.S. 281, 28 Sup.Ct. 616, 52 L.Ed. 1061. It is equally well settled that the only permissible exceptions to the rule of liability, where there is movement of the car without having the statutory equipment in proper repair, are those created by the proviso of section 4 of the Act of April 14, 1910. United States v. Erie R. Co., 237 U.S. 402, 35 Sup.Ct. 621, 59 L.Ed. 1019; B. & O.S.W. Ry. v. United States, 242 F. 420, 155 C.C.A. 196 (6 C.C.A.); C. & O. Ry. v. United States, 226 F. 683, 141 C.C.A. 439 (4 C.C.A.); C., B. & Q. Ry. v. United States, 211 F. 12, 137 C.C.A. 438 (8 C.C.A.); United States v. Trinity & B.V. Ry., 211 F. 448, 128 C.C.A. 120 (5 C.C.A.).
The stipulation of facts, incorporated in the record by bill of exceptions, shows that the car in question, with its uncoupling equipment inoperative through lack of repair, was moved by defendant in error, and it is plain that the stipulated facts do not bring the case within any of the exceptions of the proviso, but leave it to be governed by the absolute provisions of the acts. Indeed, counsel for defendant in error do not contend otherwise. This situation would require reversal of the judgment unless there is merit in the contention that the record does not show any judgment at all, or that, in any event, in the absence of findings of fact by the court, its general finding in favor of defendant in error is not assailable on the ground that the facts do not support it.
While it is extremely doubtful whether...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Alabama Great Southern Railroad Co. v. United States
...Chicago Junction Ry. Co. v. King, 7 Cir., 169 F. 372; Wabash R. Co. v. United States, 7 Cir., 172 F. 864, 865; United States v. Chicago & A. R. Co., 7 Cir., 250 F. 101, 102; Chesapeake & O. Ry. Co. v. United States, 6 Cir., 249 F. 805, 807; United States v. Trinity & B. V. Ry. Co., 5 Cir., ......
-
Parker v. NEW ENGLAND OIL CORPORATION
...be done in either court at any time, and which in any event did not affect the rights of the appellant. In United States v. C. & A. R. R., 250 F. 101, 162 C. C. A. 273 (cited by the petitioner), all that was done by the District Court after the appeal was entered was to require the clerk to......
-
US v. Lytle
...negligence of the clerks never been put on record". Freeman on Judgments § 122 (5th ed. 1925); see, e.g., United States v. Chicago & A. R. Co., 7 Cir.1918, 162 C.C.A. 273, 250 F. 101. But it is also the rule ... the entire purpose of entering judgments and decrees as of some prior date is t......
-
Murray v. Dietz, 2518.
...have been entered. Mitchell v. Overman, 103 U.S. 62, 26 L.Ed. 369; Milton v. United States, 5 Cir., 120 F.2d 794; United States v. Chicago & A. R. Co., 7 Cir., 250 F. 101; 6 Moore, Federal Practice § From what we have said we think the only proper disposition of this appeal is to rule that ......