Chicago, B. & Q. Ry. Co. v. United States
Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
In Error to the District Court of the United States for the District of Nebraska.
1Opinion of the Court
ADAMS, Circuit Judge.
Two suits were instituted by the United States to recover penalties for violating Safety Appliance Act of March 2, 1893, c. 196, 27 Stat. 531, as amended by the subsequent acts of April 1, 1896, c. 87, 29 Stat. 85 (U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 3174), and March 2, 1903, c. 976, 32 Stat. 943 (U. S. Comp. St. Supp. 1907, p. 885). Three separate violations are complained of in one suit and one in the other; but the two, having been consolidated for the purposes of a trial, will be treated as one suit with four counts.
The several counts charge the use in interstate traffic by the…
2Cases cited24 opinions
- St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Railway Co. v. TaylorSupreme Court of the United States · 1908
- Schick v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1904
- Hepner v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1909
- United States v. ZuckerSupreme Court of the United States · 1896
- Lilienthal's Tobacco v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1878
19 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by11 opinions
- Luken v. Lake Shore & Michigan Southern Railway Co.Illinois Supreme Court · 1911
- Chesapeake & O. Ry. Co. v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1915
- Gruetter v. Cumberland Telephone & Telegraph Co.U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Western Tennessee · 1909
- Atchison, T. & S. F. Ry. Co. v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1910
- Norfolk & W. Ry. Co. v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1910
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.