United States v. Sioux City Stock Yards Co.

Decision Date13 July 1908
Docket Number451.
Citation162 F. 556
PartiesUNITED STATES v. SIOUX CITY STOCK YARDS CO.
CourtU.S. District Court — Northern District of Iowa

Action to recover the penalty provided for a violation of the 28-hour law.

The defendant is an Iowa corporation, the general nature of its business as authorized by its articles of incorporation being, among other things, to acquire, own, and operate stock yards at Sioux City, in that state, to receive and care for live stock, and buy and sell the same on commission or otherwise, to acquire and hold real estate, and erect thereon any and all yards, fences, pens, or other structures necessary for such purposes, to construct and maintain railroad tracks, and to own, lease, or operate engines, cars and steam, electric, or other railroads upon and across such property for just compensation. Its capital stock is $2,500,000, and its affairs are managed by a board of directors chosen from the stockholders. It has acquired grounds at Sioux City and erected thereon the necessary structures and buildings to enable it to receive, care for ship, and otherwise handle live stock of all kinds, and the packing house products of the different packing houses located at Sioux City, and to receive from and deliver to the various railroads entering Sioux City, some six or seven in number, all engaged in interstate commerce, all such property brought to, and taken by them from, that city. For this purpose it has constructed and owns about seven miles of railroad tracks upon its grounds adjacent to its yards and buildings and the packing houses in Sioux City, and owns and operates three locomotive engines with its own crews for the transportation of cars from the tracks of the different railroad companies upon and over its own tracks to and from the consignees and shippers of such live stock and packing house products; and all of such property shipped into or out of Sioux City by railroad, and all live stock that is to be fed and watered by the different railroad companies entering Sioux City, is taken by the defendant from said railroad companies, and hauled by it with its own engines, over its own tracks, to its yards, and delivered to the consignee, or fed, watered, or otherwise cared for and returned to the proper railroad company. The greater part of its business of carrying is in transferring cars loaded with live stock from the different railroads to the consignees of such property at its yards, and from the shippers thereof and of the packing house products to the railroad companies, and it does this for all of such railroad companies and shippers at Sioux City. In fact, no such property can be shipped to or from Sioux City by railroad except from defendant's yards and over its tracks, which are connected by proper transfer tracks with those of the different railroad companies. The cars may be delivered, however, to and from all such shippers within a distance of about 1 1/2 miles from the terminal tracks of the different railroad companies. The defendant issues no shipping receipts or waybills, but receives from the railroad companies the waybills of the stock shipped to Sioux City, weighs the cars before and after they are unloaded to enable them to compute the amount of freight, and returns them to the railroads. It owns no cars other than its engines, and shippers wanting cars for outgoing shipments order them from the railroad over which they desire to ship. The defendant takes such cars from the railroad companies to the chutes of the shipper ordering them, loads the cars hauls them over its tracks, and delivers them to the proper railroad company, which issues the usual railway receipts therefor to the shipper. For its services in so carrying or transferring cars and property, the defendant receives a stipulated sum from the railroad companies from whom it receives, and to whom it delivers, the cars handled by it. It also carries products of the different packing houses to and from each other in Sioux City, as they require, and coal and ice to them from the different railroads, and the packing houses pay it for such services.

March 30, 1907, the Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Company, one of the railroads entering Sioux City and engaged in interstate commerce, received at Mapleton, Minn., 72 head of cattle to be carried and delivered to Clay Robinson & Co., dealers in live stock at Sioux City. The cattle were loaded in two cars at 6 o'clock p.m. of that day, and were carried by that company to Sioux City, where they arrived at 5:40 o'clock a.m. of April 1st, and were delivered by it to the defendant at 6:35 a.m., and by the defendant to Clay Robinson & Co. at their chutes at defendant's stock yards about 9 a.m. of the same day. The shipper by proper writing requested that the cattle be confined without unloading for rest, food, and water for a period of 36 hours. They were not unloaded and fed or watered, either by the Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Company or the defendant after they were loaded at Mapleton, and before their delivery to Clay Robinson & Co. The government alleges that defendant is a railroad company, and a common carrier other than by water, whose road connects with that of the Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Company, and that it knowingly and willfully confined the cattle in the cars for a longer period than 36 hours without unloading them for food, water, and rest, as required by law, and asks judgment for the penalty provided therefor.

The defendant answers that it is not a railroad company, or a common carrier, and that it had nothing to do with the handling of the cattle until after the expiration of the 36-hour period, following the time they were loaded upon the cars at Mapleton.

F. F. Faville, U.S. Atty.

Milchrist & Scott, for defendant.

REED District Judge (after stating the facts as above).

Upon the foregoing facts two questions are presented for determination: (1) Is the defendant a railroad company, or common carrier other than by water, within the meaning of the act of Congress commonly known as the 28-hour law? (2) If it is, has it incurred the penalty provided for a violation of that law?

So far as necessary to be now considered, the act of Congress provides:

'Section 1. That no railroad, express company, car company common carrier other than by water, * * * whose road forms any part of a line of road over which cattle, sheep, swine or other animals shall be conveyed from one state or territory, * * * into or through another state or territory * * * shall confine the same in cars, boats, or vessels of any description for a period longer than twenty-eight consecutive hours without unloading the same in a humane manner, into properly equipped pens for rest, water, and feeding, for a period of at least five consecutive hours, unless prevented by storm, or by other accidental or unavoidable causes which cannot be anticipated or avoided by the exercise of due diligence and foresight; provided, that upon the written request of the owner or person in custody of that particular shipment, which written request shall be separate and apart from any printed bill of lading, or other railroad form, the time of confinement may be extended to thirty-six hours.

In estimating such confinement the time consumed in loading and unloading shall not be considered, but the time during which the animals have been confined without rest or food or water on connecting roads shall be included, it being the intent of this act to prohibit their continuous confinement beyond the period of twenty-eight hours, except upon the contingencies hereinbefore stated. * * *

'Sec. 2. * * *

'Sec. 3. That any railroad, express company, car company, common carrier, other than by water, * * * who knowingly and willfully fails to comply with the provisions of the preceding section shall for every such failure be liable for and forfeit and pay a penalty of not less than one hundred nor more than five hundred dollars. * * * ' Act June 29, 1906, c. 3594, 34 Stat. 607, 608 (U.S. Comp. St. Supp. 1907, pp. 918, 919).

The defendant's articles of incorporation clearly provide that it may acquire real estate, construct and maintain railroad tracks thereon, and own or lease and operate engines and cars upon and over the same for just compensation. It has acquired real estate and constructed some seven miles of railroad tracks thereon, and owns three locomotive engines which it operates with its own employes upon such tracks in hauling cars of all railroad companies entering Sioux City loaded with live stock destined for the market at that place and all cars loaded at that place with live stock or packing house products consigned to other markets. It also carries or hauls over its tracks, by means of its locomotives, such of the products or freight of the packing houses from one to the other at Sioux City as they...

To continue reading

Request your trial
29 cases
  • Blumenthal v. United States
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit
    • March 9, 1937
    ...L. Ed. 41; State of Washington ex rel. Stimson Lumber Co. v. Kuykendall, 275 U.S. 207, 48 S.Ct. 41, 72 L.Ed. 241; United States v. Sioux City Stock Yards Co. (C. C.) 162 F. 556, affirmed (C.C.A.) 167 F. 126; Bay v. Merrill & Ring Lumber Co. (D.C.) 211 F. 717, affirmed (C.C.A.) 220 F. 295; L......
  • Union Stock Yard Transit Co of Chicago v. United States v. 10 8212 13, 1939
    • United States
    • U.S. Supreme Court
    • December 4, 1939
    ...498, 31 S.Ct. 279, 55 L.Ed. 310; United States v. California, 297 U.S. 175, 181, 56 S.Ct. 421, 422, 80 L.Ed. 567; United States v. Sioux City Stock Yards Co., C.C., 162 F. 556. It is not important, as appellant seems to think, that, as an incident to the service it renders to shippers and t......
  • United States v. Murdock
    • United States
    • U.S. Supreme Court
    • December 11, 1933
    ...law. Aid in arriving at the meaning of the word 'willfully' may be afforded by the context in which it is used (United States v. Sioux City Stock Yards Co. (C.C.) 162 F. 556, 562), and we think in the present instance the other omissions which the statute denounces in the same sentence only......
  • Cornell Steamboat Co. v. United States
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York
    • April 3, 1944
    ...283, 63 L.Ed. 613, 6 A.L.R. 527; Belt Ry. Co. v. United States, 7 Cir., 168 F. 542, 544, 22 L.R.A.,N.S., 582; United States v. Sioux City Stockyard Co., C.C., 162 F. 556. 11 Note that the "grandfather" clause of Part II, as to motor carriers, § 206(a) 49 U.S.C.A. 306(a), is identical in lan......
  • 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