Tilden v. United States

Ninth Circuit

Tilden v. United States

21 F.2d 967, 1927 U.S. App. LEXIS 2807

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedOctober 17, 1927

DocketNo. 5253

StatusPublished

This text of 21 F.2d 967 (Tilden v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Tilden v. United States, 21 F.2d 967, 1927 U.S. App. LEXIS 2807 (9th Cir. 1927).

Pincite

Opinion

GILBERT, Circuit Judge.

In the court below the plaintiffs in error, who constitute the board of state harbor commissioners of California, were adjudged to pay a penalty of $100 for violation of section 2 of tb© [968]*968Safety Appliance Act, approved March 2, 1893, as amended by the Act of March 2,1903 (32 Stats. 943 [Comp. St. §§ 8606-8613-8615; 45 USCA §§2,8-10]).

The writ of error presents the questions which were before this court in MeCallum v. United States (C. C. A.) 298 F. 373, 38 A. L. R. 1143, in which we held that such an action was not a. suit against the state of' California, that the State Belt Railroad, traversing the harbor front of San Francisco, and belonging to the state, was a common carrier engaged in interstate commerce, and that it was required to comply with the federal Safety Appliance Act. No authorities are now presented and no reasoning is advanced which require a reconsideration of the conclusion which was there reached.

The judgment is affirmed.

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

GILBERT, Circuit Judge.

In the court below the plaintiffs in error, who constitute the board of state harbor commissioners of California, were adjudged to pay a penalty of $100 for violation of section 2 of tb© [968]*968Safety Appliance Act, approved March 2, 1893, as amended by the Act of March 2,1903 (32 Stats. 943 [Comp. St. §§ 8606-8613-8615; 45 USCA §§2,8-10]).

The writ of error presents the questions which were before this court in MeCallum v. United States (C. C. A.) 298 F. 373, 38 A. L. R. 1143, in which we held that such an action was not a. suit against the state of' California, that the State Belt Railroad, traversing the harbor front of San Francisco, and belonging to the state, was a common carrier engaged in interstate commerce, and that it was required to comply with the federal Safety Appliance Act. No authorities are now presented and no reasoning is advanced which require a reconsideration of the conclusion which was there reached.

The judgment is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

21 F.2d 967, 1927 U.S. App. LEXIS 2807, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tilden-v-united-states-ca9-1927.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack