United States v. Chicago, Burlington Quincy Railroad Company

Decision Date10 May 1915
Docket NumberNo. 630,630
Citation35 S.Ct. 634,237 U.S. 410,59 L.Ed. 1023
PartiesUNITED STATES, Petitioner, v. CHICAGO, BURLINGTON, & QUINCY RAILROAD COMPANY
CourtU.S. Supreme Court

Assistant Attorney General Underwood for petitioner.

Messrs. H. M. Langworthy, W. D. McLeod, O. H. Dean, William Warner, and O. M. Spencer for respondent.

Mr. Justice Van Devanter delivered the opinion of the court:

This was an action for penalties under the law of Congress relating to safety appliances. Four violations were charged. One consisted in using a car with a defective coupler and the others in running certain transfer trains without having the requisite percentage of air brakes so connected that they could be operated by the engineer. The first is no longer in controversy. As to the others, the controverted question at the trial was not whether the air-brake requirement, if applicable, was violated, but whether it applied to such trains. The district court, deeming the requirement applicable, directed a verdict and entered a judgment for the government, and the circuit court of appeals, being of a different opinion, reversed the judgment, one judge dissenting. 127 C. C. A. 438, 211 Fed. 12. A writ of certiorari granted under § 262 of the Judicial Code [36 Stat. at L. 1162, chap. 231, Comp. Stat. 1913, § 1239] brings the case here.

The facts disclosed by the evidence are these: The defendant operates a railroad which passes through Kansas City, Missouri, and is used largely in interstate commerce. Among its terminal facilities at that point are two freight yards known as the Twelfth street yard and the Murray yard. These yards are on opposite sides of the Missouri river, the distance between their nearest points being about 2 miles. The track connecting them is one by which passenger and freight trains enter and leave the city; in other words, a main-line track. For a distance of 3,000 feet it is upon a single-track bridge spanning the river, and off the bridge it intersects at grade twelve or fifteen tracks of other companies and passes through the Union Depot tracks. Besides its use by the defendant's trains, a considerable portion of it is also the line by which the passenger trains and some of the freight trains of the Rock Island and Wabash railroads enter and leave the city.

Both yards are used for receiving and breaking up incoming trains, assembling and starting outgoing trains, and assorting, storing, and distributing cars. To reach their ultimate destinations, whether on the defendant's road or on those of other carriers, a large proportion of the cars have to be moved from one yard to the other, and this is accomplished by transfer trains which are run over the main-line track connecting the yards. These trains usually consist of an engine and about thirty-five cars, are operated by what are termed yard...

To continue reading

Request your trial
59 cases
  • Hiatt v. Wabash Ry. Co.
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • February 23, 1934
    ... ... WABASH RAILWAY COMPANY, Appellant ... No. 31139 ... Supreme Court ... 45 U.S. Code, secs. 1, 9; United States v. Railroad Co., 237 U.S. 402, 35 Sup. Ct ...         In United States v. Chicago, B. & Q. Railroad Co., 237 U.S. 410, the court ... Quincy, O. & K.C. Railroad Co., 317 Mo. 492, 505, 297 ... ...
  • Ainsworth v. Rapid City, Pierre & E. R.R., Inc.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of South Dakota
    • March 20, 2020
    ...States v. Erie Railroad Company, 237 U.S. 402, 35 S.Ct. 621, 59 L.Ed. 1019 (1915) and United States v. Chicago, Burlington and Quincy Railroad Co., 237 U.S. 410, 35 S.Ct. 634, 59 L.Ed. 1023 (1915), the Supreme Court used the terms "power brakes" and "air brakes" as synonymous.21 The court m......
  • Hiatt v. Wabash Ry. Co.
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • February 23, 1934
    ... ... Wabash Railway Company, Appellant Supreme Court of Missouri February ... statute. 45 U.S. Code, secs. 1, 9; United States v ... Railroad Co., 237 U.S. 402, 35 ... Chicago, B. & Q. Railroad Co., 237 U.S ... 410, the ... similar injury in Spencer v. Quincy, O. & K. C. Railroad ... Co., 317 Mo. 492, 505, ... ...
  • Conrad v. Baltimore & O. R. Co.
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • November 22, 1939
    ...brakes so used and operated. United States v. Erie Ry. Co., 237 U.S. 407, 35 S.Ct. 621, 59 L.Ed. 1019; United States v. C. B. & Q. Ry. Co., 237 U.S. 412, 35 S.Ct. 634, 59 L.Ed. 1923; Louisville & Jeffersonville Bridge Co. v. States, 249 U.S. 538, 39 S.Ct. 355, 63 L.Ed. 757; United States v.......
  • 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