Weinberg v. Northern Pac. Ry. Co.
Citation | 150 F.2d 645 |
Decision Date | 19 July 1945 |
Docket Number | No. 12872.,12872. |
Parties | WEINBERG et al. v. NORTHERN PAC. RY. CO. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit |
Albert R. Scanlon, of Los Angeles, Cal. (A. G. McKnight and Harry E. Weinberg, both of Duluth, Minn., on the brif), for appellants.
Donald D. Harries, of Duluth, Minn. (L. B. daPonte, M. L. Countryman, Jr., and F. J. Gehan, all of St. Paul, Minn., and Gillette, Nye, Harries & Montague, of Duluth, Minn., on the brief), for appellee.
Before GARDNER, JOHNSEN, and RIDDICK, Circuit Judges.
This is an appeal from a decree which permanently enjoined appellants, defendants below, from enforcing a certain ordinance passed by the City of Duluth, insofar as such ordinance prohibits the use of a certain General Electric 44-ton Diesel electric engine in performing certain switching movements in the switching yards of appellee in the said city, unless the engine be manned with a crew of not less than one qualified engineer or operator and one qualified fireman or helper. Defendants, who are here appellants, are officers of the City of Duluth, Minnesota, while the plaintiff is a railway company organized under the laws of the State of Wisconsin, owning and operating a system of railroads extending from a point on Lake Superior, in Wisconsin, into and through the State of Minnesota, with lines from St. Paul, Minnesota, to Duluth, Minnesota, and through and into the State of North Dakota and other states, and is a common carrier by railroad of interstate and intrastate commerce. The parties will be referred to as they were designated in the lower court.
Ordinance No. 6617 of the City of Duluth, the enforcement of which was enjoined as to certain area, was passed January 25, 1943, after the plaintiff had purchased a 44-ton Diesel electric engine. The ordinance defines a locomotive as "any and all railway engines, however propelled, when in use in the switching or transferring of railway cars upon railroad tracks within the corporate limits of the City of Duluth." Section 2 of the ordinance reads as follows:
"That to promote and protect the safety and welfare of employes operating locomotives on railroad tracks within the corporate limits of the City of Duluth, and to protect and promote public safety within the corporate limits of the City of Duluth where railroad tracks cross streets or avenues at grade, it shall be unlawful for any person to operate any locomotive, or cause or permit the same to be operated, upon any railroad tracks within the corporate limits of the City of Duluth, unless each such locomotive shall be then manned with a crew of not less than one qualified engineer or operator and one qualified fireman or helper."
Section 3 provides punishment for violation by fine not exceeding One Hundred Dollars, or by imprisonment not exceeding eighty-five days. Section 4 provides that each day any locomotive is operated in violation of the provisions of the ordinance shall be deemed a separate offense.
The complaint alleges that the ordinance is arbitrary, unreasonable and void; that the 44-ton Diesel engine may be operated safely by one man in both yard and road service and over roads and streets; that the Diesel engine was purchased for use and would be used only within the terminal at Duluth; that five or six times daily it will cross Twenty-first Avenue West with several passenger cars for the purpose of turning the same on the wye; that said Twenty-first Avenue is but little used by the public.
Admitting diversity of citizenship and other jurisdictional allegations, defendants by their answer put in issue the material allegations of plaintiff's complaint.
The trial court, responding to the issues joined by the pleadings, made findings of fact. Findings numbered VI to XIV, inclusive, read as follows:
The decree did not enjoin the enforcement of the ordinance generally but enjoined its enforcement as to the switching movements herein described insofar as those movements were effected by the use of the 44-ton Diesel engine.
In seeking reversal defendants contend: (1) That the ordinance was passed in the exercise of the police power of the city, and hence was authorized, and that the question of the safety in operation was fairly debatable; (2) that certain evidence was improperly received.
In addition to the foregoing, there is presented the question as to whether under its Home Rule Charter, the City of Duluth had power to enact this ordinance. The trial court in its opinion, referring to this question, among other things, said:
The trial court, however, did not find it necessary to pass upon this question, and although the question is presented by the record we shall follow...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
City of St. Paul v. Chicago, St. P., M. & O. Ry. Co.
...South Carolina State H. Dept. v. Barnwell Bros., 303 U.S. 177, 191-192, 58 S.Ct. 510, 82 L.Ed. 734 (1938); Weinberg v. Northern Pac. Ry. Co., 150 F.2d 645, 648 (8th Cir. 1945). Fairly debatable questions as to the reasonableness, wisdom and propriety of an ordinance are not for the determin......
-
Izaak Walton League of America v. St. Clair
...South Carolina State H. Dept. v. Barnwell Bros., 303 U.S. 177, 191-192, 58 S.Ct. 510, 82 L.Ed. 734 (1938); Weinberg v. Northern Pac. Ry. Co., 150 F.2d 645, 648 (8th Cir. 1945). Fairly debatable questions as to the reasonableness, wisdom and propriety of an ordinance are not for the determin......
-
Weatherby v. Jackson
... ... Nebbia v. New ... York, 291 U.S. 502, 54 S.Ct. 505, 78 L.Ed. 940; Weinberg ... v. Northern Pac. Ry. Co., 150 F.2d 645 ... Swofford, ... Jackson & ... ...
-
New York Cent. R. Co. v. Lefkowitz
...arbitrarily interfere with or impose unreasonable restrictions on the lawful operations of the railroads (Cf. Weinberg v. Northern Pac. Ry. Co., 8 Cir., 150 F.2d 645, 651). Although the evidence is of doubtful competency (Cf. Richards v. Robin, 178 App.Div. 535, 539, 165 N.Y.S. 780, 784, an......