United States v. Philadelphia & R. Ry. Co.

• Decision Date: 13 May 1915
• Docket Number: 3434.
• Citation: 223 F. 213
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Pennsylvania
• Parties: UNITED STATES v. PHILADELPHIA & R. RY. CO.

223 F. 213

UNITED STATES v. PHILADELPHIA & R. RY. CO.

No. 3434.

United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania.

May 13, 1915

Robert J. Sterrett, Asst. U.S. Atty., and Francis Fisher Kane, U.S Atty., both of Philadelphia, Pa,. for the United States.

Wm Clarke Mason, of Philadelphia, Pa., for defendant.

DICKINSON District Judge.

This is an action for the penalty imposed under the act of Congress of June 29, 1906. Trial by jury was waived by agreement, and the case tried before the court.

The facts are these: A car load of 168 hogs was shipped from Cincinnati, Ohio, consigned to J. J. Felin, at Nicetown Philadelphia. The hogs were unloaded, watered, and fed at Pittsburg. They were then loaded on car P.L. 658237, April 22, 1914, at 6 o'clock a.m. The time limit had been extended and expired at 6 p.m. April 23d. The hogs were however, kept confined in the car until 7:40 p.m. The time limit was thus exceeded by 1 hour and 40 minutes. The defendant took charge of the transportation of the car at Rutherford, Pa.

The next point for unloading was Reading. It was the duty of the receiving clerk at Rutherford to have noted the loading time as 6 a.m. April 22d, and to have marked the shipment for unloading, etc., at Reading. Through a clerical error this was not done. In consequence, the car was not unloaded at Reading, but went on through to Philadelphia. There was no other excuse for or explanation of the failure to unload.

The question in the case is whether under this state of facts the defendant has 'knowingly and willfully' failed to comply with the requirements of the law. We do not regard the question as open to but one answer. It is disposed of for us by the case of U.S. v. Lehigh Valley, 204 F. 705 123 C.C.A. 9. We do not view the doctrine laid down in that case to be fraught with the danger to the enforcement of the law which the argument for the United States assumes to be present in it. It must be borne in mind that the act of Congress requires the railroad to perform a duty which primarily is imposed on the owner to feed his own stock. Properly, therefore, failure to obey is not made punitive unless the failure is with knowledge and willful. In a word, it must reach the grade of disobedience. Carriers are, of course, bound to know the law. Knowing it, they know the time of confinement on the connecting line must be computed. Means of knowledge within reach must be resorted to. A refusal...