United States v. Western & A.R. Co.

• Decision Date: 01 December 1910
• Citation: 184 F. 336
• Parties: UNITED STATES v. WESTERN & A.R. CO.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Northern District of Georgia

184 F. 336

UNITED STATES v. WESTERN & A.R. CO.

United States District Court, N.D. Georgia.

December 1, 1910

F. C Tate, U.S. Atty., and Jno. W. Henley, Asst. U.S. Atty.

Tye Peeples & Jordan, for defendant.

NEWMAN District Judge.

This is a suit under the safety appliance act. The declaration, after certain formalities, proceeds as follows:

'That said defendant is a common carrier engaged in interstate commerce by railroad among the several states and territories of the United States, particularly the states of Tennessee and Georgia. Plaintiff further alleges that in violation of the act of Congress known as the 'Safety Appliance Act,' approved March 2, 1893 (contained in 27 Statutes at Large, p. 531), as amended by an act approved April 1, 1896 (contained in 29 Statutes at Large, p. 85) and as amended by an act approved March 2, 1903 (contained in 32 Statutes at Large, p. 943), said defendant on April 17, 1909, hauled on its line of railroad one car, to wit, S.A.L. 30309, said car being one regularly used in the movement of interstate traffic, but at the time of said violation being empty and hauled in a train containing interstate traffic, one car in said train, to wit, P.F.W. & C. Ry. 823210, containing pipe consigned from Richmond, in the state of Virginia, to Atlanta, in the state of Georgia. Plaintiff further alleges that on said date defendant hauled said car S.A.L. 30309, as aforesaid, over its line of railroad in and about Atlanta, in the state of Georgia, within the jurisdiction of this court when the coupling and uncoupling apparatus on the 'B' end of said car was out of repair and inoperative, the chain connecting the lock pin or lock block to the uncoupling lever being broken on said end of said car, and the eye bolt being broken off of the lock block on the said end of said car, thus necessitating a man or men going between the ends of the cars to couple or uncouple them, and when said car was not equipped with couplers coupling automatically by impact, and which could be uncoupled without the necessity of a man or men going between the ends of the cars, as required by section 2 of the safety appliance act, as amended by section 1 of the act of March 2, 1903.'

Then follows the claim that defendant is liable in the sum of $100, and a prayer for judgment. To this declaration a demurrer was interposed, which, as developed on argument, makes two points: First, that the declaration fails to show that the car containing interstate commerce was immediately connected with-- that is, next in-- the train of cars to the one on which it is alleged there was a defective appliance.

The intent of the amendatory act of 1903 (Act March 2, 1903, c 976, 32 Stat. 943 (U.S. Comp. St. Supp. 1909, p. 1143)) is that Act March 2, 1893, c. 196, 27 Stat. 531 (U.S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 3174), as amended in 1896 (Act April 1, 1896, c. 87, 29 Stat. 85), 'shall be held to apply to all trains, locomotives, tenders, cars and similar vehicles used on any railroad engaged in interstate commerce and in the territories or the District of Columbia, and to all other locomotives, tenders, cars and similar vehicles used in connection therewith. ' It seems perfectly clear to me,...