United States v. Stockyards Terminal Co.
| Decision Date | 17 July 1909 |
| Citation | 172 F. 452 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES v. STOCKYARDS TERMINAL CO. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Minnesota |
C. C Houpt, U.S. Dist. Atty.
Davis Kellogg & Severance and Robert E. Olds, for defendant.
This action is brought to recover a penalty under the act of June 29, 1906, entitled 'An act to prevent cruelty to animals while in transit,' commonly called the 'Twenty-Eight Hour Law' (34 Stat. 607, c. 3594 (U.S. comp. St. Supp 1907, p. 918)). The complaint states two causes of action but on the trial the case was dismissed as to the second cause of action, and as to the first it was heard upon an agreed statement of facts.
A shipment of five car loads of cattle was loaded at Lavina, Mont., at 11 p.m. July 31, 1908, consigned to the Union Stockyards, Chicago, Ill., was thence carried by the Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Company to Dayton's Bluff, St. Paul, Minn., and there delivered to the defendant at 6:35 a.m. on August 3d. The time intervening between the completion of the loading at Lavina and the delivery of the shipment to the defendant was 55 hours and 35 minutes. The stock was carried by the defendant company from Dayton's Bluff to the stockyards at South St. Paul, a distance of about 11 miles, for the sole purpose of being unloaded, rested, watered, and fed. The unloading was commenced at said stockyards at South St. Paul at 8:40 on the morning of August 3d. The stock was therefore in the custody of the defendant company 2 hours and 5 minutes. It thus appears that the animals were continuously confined without food, water, and rest for total period of 57 hours and 40 minutes. By virtue of a request of the owner of the stock, the time of confinement was extended to 36 hours.
The government brought an action under the statute above cited against the Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Company to recover a penalty for confining this stock, in violation of law, for more than 36 hours. Judgment was rendered in that action in favor of the government, and against the Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Company, for a penalty of $250, which judgment has been paid and satisfied. The violation of the law for which the Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Company was thus punished related to at least the first 36 hours of the confinement of the stock, and this period terminated on August 2d at 11 a.m.
No part of this time elapsed while ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States v. Wabash R. Co.
...... and barred by the fact that the United States had recovered. and received a penalty from the St. Louis Merchants'. Bridge Terminal Railway Company for its subsequent receipt. from the defendant and confinement of these cattle about two. hours while continuing their on from the terminus. of the defendant's railroad in St. Louis to the national. stockyards in Illinois. The case is conditioned by the. material fact that the defendant received the cattle within. the 28-hour period and confined them ......
-
United States v. Union Stockyards Co. of Omaha
......See St. Joseph Stockyards Co. v. United States, 187 F. 104, 110 C.C.A. 432; Grand. Trunk Railway Co. v. United States, 229 F. 117, 143. C.C.A. 392; St. L. & S.F. Ry. Co. v. U.S., 169 F. 69, 94 C.C.A. 437; U.S. v. Sioux City Stockyards Co. (C.C.) 162 F. 556; U.S. v. Stockyards Terminal Co. (C.C.) 172 F. 452; N.Y. Central & H.R.R. Co. v. U.S., 165 F. 833, 91 C.C.A. 519, and many other cases. that might be cited. . . The. judgments entered in the trial court must be affirmed. ......
-
St. Joseph Stockyards Co. v. United States
...... either intentionally disregards the statute or is plainly. indifferent to its requirements. ' St. Louis & S.F.R. Co. v. United States, 94 C.C.A. 437, 439, 169 F. 69, 71;. United States v. Sioux City Stockyards Co. (C.C.). 162 F. 556, 560, 562; United States v. Stockyards. Terminal Co. (C.C.) 172 F. 452; New York Central &. H.R.R. Co. v. United States, 165 F. 833, 841, 91 C.C.A. 519, 527. . . In. United States v. Stockyards Terminal Ry. Company, 101. C.C.A. 147, 151, 178 F. 19, 23, a stockyards company had. received from. [187 F. 106] . a railroad company ......
-
United States v. Lehigh Valley R. Co.
......Sioux City. Stock Yards Co., 162 F. 556, 561, and by Judge Willard,. in the Circuit Court of Minnesota, in United States v. Stockyards Terminal Co., 172 F. 452. The latter case,. upon appeal to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Eighth. Circuit, was affirmed (178 F. 19); but the ......