United States v. Michigan Cent. R. Co.

Decision Date10 December 1891
Citation48 F. 365
PartiesUNITED STATES v. MICHIGAN CENT. R. CO.
CourtU.S. District Court — Northern District of New York

John E Smith, for the United States.

Daniel H. McMillian, for defendant.

WALLACE. J.

This is an action to recover the penalty imposed by section 3 of the act of congress of February 26, 1885, entitled 'An act to prohibit the importation and migration of foreigners and aliens under contract or agreement to perform labor in the United States, its territories, and the District of Columbia.: Briefly stated, the facts are these: The defendant, a Michigan corporation, operates a railway between Chicago and Buffalo, the route of which, between the state of Michigan and New York, is through Canada. It has an office at Suspension Bridge, in New York. One Blount applied at that office for employment as a clerk, and was engaged by the defendant at wages of $50 per month, but for no stated period. He continued in the employ of the defendant for several months. Before the expiration of the first month the officers of the defendant ascertained that Blount was an alien, residing in Canada, and having a family there, and that he came from his home each morning to the office of the defendant, and after performing his day's work returned home each night. Nevertheless defendant retained him in its service.

The defendant's liability under the act of congress is precisely the same as though it had made a new contract with Blount at the beginning of his second month of service, with full knowledge of the facts. At the end of the first month the existing contract between them was at an end, and thereafter there was an implied contract of the same tenor. The statute, by section 1, makes it unlawful for any person or corporation to prepay the transportation, or in any way assist or encourage the importation or migration, of any foreigner into the United States under contract or agreement express or implied, made previous to the importation or migration of such foreigner; and, by section 3, declares that for every violation of the provisions of section 1, the person or corporation violating the same, by knowingly encouraging the migration or importation of an alien to perform labor or service of any kind under contract or agreement, expressed or implied, made with the alien previous to his becoming a resident or citizen of the United States shall forfeit and pay for such offense the sum of $1,000. Notwithstanding...

To continue reading

Request your trial
2 cases
  • United States v. Karnuth
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit
    • March 5, 1928
    ...389, Ann. Cas. 1912B, 1312; 9 Corpus Juris, 1101; Goddard v. Chaffee, 2 Allen (84 Mass.) 395, 79 Am. Dec. 796. In United States v. Michigan Central R. R. Co. (C. C.) 48 F. 365, the railroad company employed in its office in New York, near the Canadian border, a resident of Canada, who came ......
  • United States v. Morrisey
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit
    • October 15, 1917
    ... ... announces the same rule under the same statute. The defendant ... also cites United States v. Michigan Cent. R. Co ... (C.C.) 48 F. 365, but we confess we cannot see its ... application ... None of ... the cases cited were under the same ... ...

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