St. Louis Southwestern Ry. Co. v. United States

183 F. 770, 106 C.C.A. 136, 1910 U.S. App. LEXIS 5198
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
DecidedDecember 20, 1910
DocketNo. 1,941
StatusPublished
Cited by6 cases

This text of 183 F. 770 (St. Louis Southwestern Ry. Co. v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
St. Louis Southwestern Ry. Co. v. United States, 183 F. 770, 106 C.C.A. 136, 1910 U.S. App. LEXIS 5198 (5th Cir. 1910).

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The judgment of the District Court is affirmed.

On Rehearing.

The hauling by any carrier engaged in interstate commerce of a car not furnished with the safety appliances required by the laws of the United States is a violation óf the statute, which entitles the United States to recover a penalty of $100; and as this penalty attaches for each and every such violation, it is recoverable for each and every car [771]*771not furnished with the requisite safety appliances hauled in violation of the act.

Whether the hauling be of several cars by one act or by several acts is immaterial, so that if several cars, each without the requisite appliances, are hauled by the carrier at one and the same time, there are several distinct violations, for each and every of which the penalty is due and recoverable. See United States v. St. Louis & S. W. Ry. (No. 1,895 of this court, recently decided) 184 Fed. 28.

On reason and weight of authority it is considered that actions to recover the statutory penalties for violation of the safety appliance law (Act March 2, 1893, c. 196, 27 Stat. 531 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 3174]) are so far civil in their nature that the strict construction applicable in criminal proceedings is not required, and the United States may recover upon the preponderance of evidence, and the trial judge may in proper cases direct a verdict.

The petition for rehearing herein is denied.

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

Related

Helvering v. Mitchell
303 U.S. 391 (Supreme Court, 1938)
United States v. Cornwall & L. R.
268 F. 680 (M.D. Pennsylvania, 1920)
United States v. Atlantic Coast Line R.
211 F. 897 (Fourth Circuit, 1914)
United States v. Kansas City Southern Ry. Co.
202 F. 828 (Eighth Circuit, 1913)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
183 F. 770, 106 C.C.A. 136, 1910 U.S. App. LEXIS 5198, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/st-louis-southwestern-ry-co-v-united-states-ca5-1910.