United States v. Baltimore & O. R. Co.
District Court, W.D. Virginia
Action by the United States against the Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Company to recover certain penalties for alleged violation of Safety Appliance Act (Act March 2, 1893, c. 196, 27 Stat. 531 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 3174]) § 4, requiring railroad equipment to be fitted with handholds in the sides near the rear end. A verdict having been directed1 for the government, defendant moved to set the verdict aside.
1Opinion of the Court
McDOWEDD, District Judge.
This is an action of debt brought for alleged violations of section 4 of the safety appliance act. Act March 2, 1893, c. 196, 27 Stat. 531 (U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 3174). The evidence for the government was to the effect that two yard engine tenders of the defendant, used in interstate commerce, had no handholds in the sides near the rear ends. This fact was not disputed, and the declaration alleged no violation of the act other than the absence of handholds in the sides near the rear ends of the tenders. The front corners of the tenders were rounded, and in these…
2Cases cited16 opinions
- United States v. WiltbergerSupreme Court of the United States · 1820
- Knowlton v. MooreSupreme Court of the United States · 1900
- Bank of Columbia v. OkelySupreme Court of the United States · 1819
- Gardner v. CollinsSupreme Court of the United States · 1829
- Hamilton v. RathboneSupreme Court of the United States · 1899
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- Moore v. St. Joseph & Grand Island Railway Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1916
- Southern Railway Co. v. Railroad CommissionIndiana Supreme Court · 1913
- Ewing v. Coal & Coke Railway Co.West Virginia Supreme Court · 1918
- Lemee v. Texas & P. Ry. Co.Supreme Court of Louisiana · 1917
- United States v. Norfolk & W. Ry. Co.District Court, W.D. Virginia · 1910