Legal Opinion

Mutual Transit Co. v. United States

Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit

Decided April 4, 1910No. 34PublishedCited by 9 opinions

In Error to the District Court of the United States for the Western District of New York. Action by the United States against the Mutual Transit Company. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant brings error.

Read the full summary

In Error to the District Court of the United States for the Western District of New York. Action by the United States against the Mutual Transit Company. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant brings error. A judgment was rendered against the plaintiff in error, the defendant below, upon an information charging such defendant with the offense of unlawfully and willfully offering, giving, and granting a rebate or concession, in violation of the act to further regulate commerce of February Í9. 1903. In tho statement' aiul opinion following the parties are designated as in the District Court. The…

1Opinion of the CourtNoyes, Circuit Judge

(after stating the facts as above). The act to further regulate commerce, known as the “Elkins Act” (Act Feb. 19, 1903, c. 708, 32 Stat. 847 [U. S. Comp. St. Supp. 1909, p. 1138]), as it existed at' the time of the aforesaid transactions, made it a mide-meanor for any person or corporation—

“to offer, grant or give or to solicit, accept or receive any rebate, concession, or discrimination in respect of the transportation of any property in interstate or foreign commerce by any common carrier subject to the said act to regulate the commerce and the acts amendatory thereof, whereby any such…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Cincinnati, N. O. & T. P. Ry. Co. v. Interstate Commerce Commission. Interstate Commerce Commission v. Cincinnati. N. O. & T. P. Ry. Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1896
  2. Camden Iron Works v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1908
  3. United States v. New York Central & Hudson River RailroadSupreme Court of the United States · 1909

3Cited by9 opinions

  1. United States v. Mississippi Valley Barge Line Company, Mississippi Valley Barge Line Company v. United States Fo AmericaCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1960
  2. Standard Oil Co. v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1910
  3. Penna. R. Co. v. PU Comm'n.Supreme Court of the United States · 1936
  4. GEN. ACC. FIRE & LIFE ASSUR. CORP. v. PiazzaNew York Court of Appeals · 1958
  5. Pennsylvania Railroad v. Public Utilities CommissionSupreme Court of the United States · 1936

4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API