United States v. Chicago, St. P., M. & O. Ry. Co.

245 F. 179, 1917 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 958
CourtDistrict Court, N.D. Iowa
DecidedSeptember 18, 1917
DocketNo. 162
StatusPublished

This text of 245 F. 179 (United States v. Chicago, St. P., M. & O. Ry. Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, N.D. Iowa primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
United States v. Chicago, St. P., M. & O. Ry. Co., 245 F. 179, 1917 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 958 (N.D. Iowa 1917).

Opinion

REED, District Judge.

On January 31, 1916, some 40 head of cattle were loaded into a car at the Union Stockyards in St. Paul, Minn., at 4:30 o’clock p. m. of that day, to be carried by the defendant, a common carrier by railroad, and its connecting carriers, to Moville, in the state of Iowa. By proper written request of the shipper, the cattle during shipment might be confined for a.period of 36 hours without being unloaded for rest, food, and water, as provided by said act of Congress. The car in which said cattle were loaded was delivered to defendant shortly thereafter at South St. Paul, Minn., and was carried by it to Le Mars, a station on its line of road in Iowa. The running time of defendant’s train from South St. Paul to Le Mars is not shown by the testimony; but the train arrived at Le Mars on February 1, 1916, in time to have left, and did in fact leave, there at 11:45 p. m. of that day, or 31 hours and 15 minutes after the cattle were loaded at St. Paul. In the absence of delays the train could have made the run from Le Mars to Sioux City, on its way to its destination, a distance of about 26 miles, in 1½ hours, but did not arrive there until February 2, 1916, at about 2:15 a. m., and was not delivered by defendant to its connecting carrier at Sioux City until 6:40 a. m., and the stock was not unloaded until 7:25 p. m. of that day, and was therefore confined without unloading for the required food, water, and rest for nearly 39 hours.

The cause was submitted to the court upon a stipulation of facts, from which it appears: That defendant operates all of its trains from St. Paul, Minn., to Sioux City, Iowa, over the line and road of the Illinois Central Railroad Company (which will be called the Central Company) between Le Mars and Sioux City, under the directions and control of the train dispatcher of the Central Company, who is located at Cherokee, on the line of that company, some 30 miles east of Le Mars. Defendant’s train carrying the cattle in question (which was No. 217) left Le Mars at 11:45 p. m. February 1, 1916, with orders to meet and pass train No. 242 of the Chicago & Northwestern Railroad Company (which will be called the Northwestern Company), which also runs over the line and road of the Central from Sioux City to Le Mars, at James station, on the line of the Central Company, some 7 miles north of Sioux City, at which station there was no telegraph or other operator at night. That defendant’s train No. 217 passed Wren, a station on the line of the Central Company between Le Mars and James, without further orders; thence proceeded to James, and took the siding there to meet and pass the Northwestern train No. 242, north bound, as it was ordered by the Cherokee dispatcher to do. That after defendant’s train had passed the station Wren, the dispatcher of the Northwestern Company at Sioux City arbitrarily ordered the engine of train No. 242 to be sent south of Sioux City, on the line of the Northwestern Company, to bring into said city a train on the Northwestern line on which an engine had failed to operate because of weath[181]*181er conditions. That after waiting for a considerable time at James, expecting the arrival of train No. 242 of the Northwestern Company, and being unable to get further orders because of the closed condition of said station, the conductor of defendant’s train got into communication by telephone with the dispatcher of the Central Company at Cherokee, and was then for the first time advised of the condition, and was directed by the Cherokee dispatcher to take his train into Sioux City. That the weather on the night in question was cold and foggy, and while defendant’s train was awaiting at James the arrival of. the Northwestern train No. 242, its engine became more or less frozen, and upon receiving orders to take said train into Sioux City the conductor was unable, on account of the condition of said engine, to take the entire train at one time, and took the first part, or section, of said train as far as Leeds, a point within the city limits of Sioux City, and then returned to James, and brought to Leeds the last section of his said train; the car in question being in the first section brought to Leeds. That said conductor then proceeded with the said first section of his train to the terminal of the defendant company in the yards at Sioux City. That, while said car was being moved by the defendant from its terminals in Sioux City for delivery to the Sioux City Terminal Company to be unloaded, that portion of said train in which the car was being so carried was struck by switch engine No. 248, operated by defendant company, after the same had proceeded but a short distance towards said transfer track, and a further delay incurred by reason of said wreck, which was caused by the condition of the weather on the morning in question; the immediate cause therefor being the inability of the engineer of engine No. 248 to observe the signals given.

Because of the delays thus stated it is contended in behalf of the defendant that it is not liable for the statutory penalty by reason of its delay in unloading the cattle for food, water, and rest within the 36-hour period that it was authorized to detain the cattle without so unloading them. The act of Congress to which reference has been made provides in effect:

That no railroad, express company, or common carrier, other than by water, shall knowingly and willfully confine any cattle or other animals, transported- by them in interstate commerce, for a period longer than 28 consecutive hours without unloading the same for rest, water, and food, for a period of at least 5 consecutive hours, unless prevented by storm, or by accidental or other unavoidable cause, which cannot be anticipated or avoided by the exercise of due diligence and foresight: Provided, that upon the written request of the owner or person in custody of the particular shipment the time of confinement may be extended to 36 hours; and any common carrier so off ending shall be liable for a penalty of not less than ?100 nor more than i?500 for eac-h such violation, to be recovered by civil action in the name of the United States.

[ 1 ] Under this statute it is incumbent upon the government to show by a preponderance of evidence that the defendant “knowingly and willfully” confined this shipment of cattle without unloading them for food, water, and rest for more than 36 consecutive hours after they were loaded in St. Paul (St. Joseph Stockyard Co. v. United States, 187 Fed. 104, 110 C. C. A. 432); and, if the proofs so show, then it [182]*182would be incumbent upon the defendant to show by a preponderance of the evidence that its failure to so unload them was caused by storm, or by accidental or other unavoidable causes, which could not have been anticipated and avoided by the exercise of due care and foresight (New York Central & Hudson R. R. Co. v. United States, 165 Fed. 833, 91 C. C. A. 519; United States v. Oregon Short Line Co. [C. C.] 160 Fed. 526). With these rules in mind, the facts stipulated, which are on file with the clerk as part of the record, may be considered.

[2,3] The running time of defendant’s train in which the cattle were carried from St. Paul to Le Mars, is not shown, nor is the time the train was delayed at Le Mars, if delayed at all, shown, or for what purpose; but it does appear that the train left Le Mars for Sioux City, at 11:45 p.

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

Related

New York Cent. & H. R. R. v. United States
165 F. 833 (First Circuit, 1908)
St. Joseph Stockyards Co. v. United States
187 F. 104 (Eighth Circuit, 1911)
United States v. Oregon Short Line R.
160 F. 526 (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Idaho, 1908)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
245 F. 179, 1917 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 958, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-chicago-st-p-m-o-ry-co-iand-1917.