Atchison, T. & S. F. Ry. Co. v. United States

Eighth Circuit

Atchison, T. & S. F. Ry. Co. v. United States

172 F. 1021, 1909 U.S. App. LEXIS 5045

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

DecidedOctober 5, 1909

DocketNos. 3,027, 3,028

StatusPublished

This text of 172 F. 1021 (Atchison, T. & S. F. Ry. Co. v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Atchison, T. & S. F. Ry. Co. v. United States, 172 F. 1021, 1909 U.S. App. LEXIS 5045 (8th Cir. 1909).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

These were actions for penalties for the violation of the safety appliance law embodied in Act March 2, 1893, c. 196, 27 Stat. 531 (U. S. Uomp. St. 1901, p. 3174), Act April 1, 1896, c. 87, 29 Stat. 85, and Act March 2, 1903, c. 976, 32 Stat. 943 (U. S. Comp. St. Supp. 1907, p. 885), and the principal question in the cases was whether the duty of the railway company, where this law was applicable, was that of exercising reasonable care to maintain the prescribed safety appliances in operative condition, or was absolute. This question, and all the other questions in these cases, have been repeatedly considered and decided, and upon the authority of St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Railway Company v. Taylor, 210 U. S. 281, 294, 28 Sup. Ct. 616, 52 L. Ed. 1061, United States v. Denver & Rio Grande R. Co., 163 Fed. 519, 90 C. C. A. 329, Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Ry. Co. v. United States, 165 Fed. 423, 91 C. C. A. 373, 20 L, R. A. (N. S.) 473, Hepner v. United States, 213 U. S. 103, 29 Sup. Ct. 474, 53 L. Ed. 720, and Chicago, Burlington & Quincy R. Co. v. United States (C. C. A.) 170 Fed. 556, the judgments below must be affirmed. It is so ordered.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

These were actions for penalties for the violation of the safety appliance law embodied in Act March 2, 1893, c. 196, 27 Stat. 531 (U. S. Uomp. St. 1901, p. 3174), Act April 1, 1896, c. 87, 29 Stat. 85, and Act March 2, 1903, c. 976, 32 Stat. 943 (U. S. Comp. St. Supp. 1907, p. 885), and the principal question in the cases was whether the duty of the railway company, where this law was applicable, was that of exercising reasonable care to maintain the prescribed safety appliances in operative condition, or was absolute. This question, and all the other questions in these cases, have been repeatedly considered and decided, and upon the authority of St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Railway Company v. Taylor, 210 U. S. 281, 294, 28 Sup. Ct. 616, 52 L. Ed. 1061, United States v. Denver & Rio Grande R. Co., 163 Fed. 519, 90 C. C. A. 329, Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Ry. Co. v. United States, 165 Fed. 423, 91 C. C. A. 373, 20 L, R. A. (N. S.) 473, Hepner v. United States, 213 U. S. 103, 29 Sup. Ct. 474, 53 L. Ed. 720, and Chicago, Burlington & Quincy R. Co. v. United States (C. C. A.) 170 Fed. 556, the judgments below must be affirmed. It is so ordered.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

172 F. 1021, 1909 U.S. App. LEXIS 5045, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/atchison-t-s-f-ry-co-v-united-states-ca8-1909.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack