United States v. Northern Pac. Terminal Co., 4,813.

CourtUnited States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (9th Circuit)
Citation144 F. 861
Docket Number4,813.
PartiesUNITED STATES v. NORTHERN PAC. TERMINAL CO.
Decision Date02 April 1906

144 F. 861

UNITED STATES
v.
NORTHERN PAC. TERMINAL CO.

No. 4,813.

United States District Court, D. Oregon.

April 2, 1906


This is an action instituted by the United States against the defendant, as a common carrier engaged in interstate commerce, to recover for violation of the safety appliance act of Congress approved March 2, 1893, 27 Stat. 531, c. 196 (U.S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 3174), and acts amendatory thereto, in hauling on its line of railroad, by first count, one car, namely, Union Pacific coal No. 11,147, used in moving interstate traffic, to wit, coal consigned [144 F. 862] from Cumberland, in the state of Wyoming, to a point in some state of the United States other than Wyoming, when the coupling and uncoupling apparatus on said car was out of repair and inoperative. The second count has relation to Oregon Short Line Company car No. 5,574, consigned from same point to like destination. Other counts follow that are not now involved; the matters with relation thereto having been settled out of court.

As a separate defense, the defendant sets up, in effect that it is engaged in furnishing terminal facilities only for those railroads terminating in the city of Portland, namely, the Northern Pacific, the Southern Pacific, and the Oregon Railroad & Navigation Company; that it does not own nor control any railroad except its tracks within the terminal yards, none of which is now, or at any time has been, used in the transportation of interstate commerce, except that the engines of the defendant are used in switching the cars of the several companies for which it furnishes terminal facilities to the team tracks of the defendant, for unloading purposes for Portland delivery and placing the same and other such cars upon the tracks appropriated to the use of the company to which such cars belong; that of the cars mentioned in the complaint none were hauled over any lines of the railroad of defendant, or at all transported or operated by defendant, except within the terminal grounds, and there only for the purposes aforesaid.

Answering separately the first cause of action, the defendant alleges that the said car No. 11,147 was brought into defendant's terminal yards by the Southern Pacific Company, having loaded thereon coal, to be delivered, received, and used upon the engines of the Southern Pacific Company in the city of Portland; that defendant had no means of knowing the condition of said car, or the coupling apparatus complained...

To continue reading

Request your trial
9 practice notes
  • Mississippi Cent R. Co. v. Knight, 24615
    • United States
    • Mississippi Supreme Court
    • 30 Marzo 1925
    ...155 F. 305; United States v. Chicago Great Western Ry. Co., [138 Miss. 624] 162 F. 775; United States v. Northern Pac. Terminal B. Co., 144 F. 861; Western Ry. of Alabama v. Mays, 72 So. 641; Devine v. Chicago & C. River R. Co., 257 Ill. 449, 102 N.E. 803; Ross v. Sheldon, 176 Iowa 618,......
  • Higginbotham v. Public Belt Railroad Commission, 34936
    • United States
    • Louisiana Supreme Court
    • 31 Octubre 1938
    ...N.S. 582; State v. Houston Belt & Terminal R. Co., Tex.Civ.App., 166 S.W. 83; United States v. Northern Pacific Terminal Co., D.C., 144 F. 861; Batchelder & Snyder Co. v. Union Freight R. Co., 259 Mass. 368, 156 N.E. 698, 54 A.L.R. 616; Interstate Stock-Yards Co. v. Indianapolis U. ......
  • United States v. Illinois Cent. R. Co.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 6th Circuit. United States District Court of Western District of Kentucky
    • 1 Noviembre 1907
    ...States v. Southern Railway Co. (D.C.) 135 F. 122; Same v. P., C., C. & St. L. Ry. (D.C.) 143 F. 360; Same v. N. P. Terminal Co. (D.C.) 144 F. 861; Same v. Indiana Harbor R.R. Co. (D.C.) 157 F. 565; Same v. C., B. & Q.R. Co. (D.C.) 156 F. 180; Same v. Great Northern Ry. Co. (D.C.) 15......
  • Lake Shore & Mich. Southern Railway Co. v. Benson, 13087
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Ohio
    • 16 Enero 1912
    ...in dangerous employment. Schlemmer v. Railway Co., 205 U.S. 1; United States v. Railway Co., 149 F. 486; United States v. Terminal Co., 144 F. 861; Chicago Junction Ry. Co. v. King, 169 F. 372.; St. Louis & Iron Mountain Ry. Co. v. Tailor, 210 U.S. 281; Voelker v. Railway Co., 116 F. 86......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
9 cases
  • Mississippi Cent R. Co. v. Knight, 24615
    • United States
    • Mississippi Supreme Court
    • 30 Marzo 1925
    ...155 F. 305; United States v. Chicago Great Western Ry. Co., [138 Miss. 624] 162 F. 775; United States v. Northern Pac. Terminal B. Co., 144 F. 861; Western Ry. of Alabama v. Mays, 72 So. 641; Devine v. Chicago & C. River R. Co., 257 Ill. 449, 102 N.E. 803; Ross v. Sheldon, 176 Iowa 618,......
  • Higginbotham v. Public Belt Railroad Commission, 34936
    • United States
    • Louisiana Supreme Court
    • 31 Octubre 1938
    ...N.S. 582; State v. Houston Belt & Terminal R. Co., Tex.Civ.App., 166 S.W. 83; United States v. Northern Pacific Terminal Co., D.C., 144 F. 861; Batchelder & Snyder Co. v. Union Freight R. Co., 259 Mass. 368, 156 N.E. 698, 54 A.L.R. 616; Interstate Stock-Yards Co. v. Indianapolis U. ......
  • United States v. Illinois Cent. R. Co.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 6th Circuit. United States District Court of Western District of Kentucky
    • 1 Noviembre 1907
    ...States v. Southern Railway Co. (D.C.) 135 F. 122; Same v. P., C., C. & St. L. Ry. (D.C.) 143 F. 360; Same v. N. P. Terminal Co. (D.C.) 144 F. 861; Same v. Indiana Harbor R.R. Co. (D.C.) 157 F. 565; Same v. C., B. & Q.R. Co. (D.C.) 156 F. 180; Same v. Great Northern Ry. Co. (D.C.) 15......
  • Lake Shore & Mich. Southern Railway Co. v. Benson, 13087
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Ohio
    • 16 Enero 1912
    ...in dangerous employment. Schlemmer v. Railway Co., 205 U.S. 1; United States v. Railway Co., 149 F. 486; United States v. Terminal Co., 144 F. 861; Chicago Junction Ry. Co. v. King, 169 F. 372.; St. Louis & Iron Mountain Ry. Co. v. Tailor, 210 U.S. 281; Voelker v. Railway Co., 116 F. 86......
  • 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