United States v. Southern Ry. Co.
District Court, S.D. Illinois
This action is brought under section 6 of the act in regard to safety appliances, approved March 2, 1893, c. 196, 27 Stat. 532, as amended April 1, 1896, c. 87, 29 Stat. 85 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 3175], which provides a penalty of $100 for every violation of the act, and refers to the violation covered by section 2 of said act (27 Stat. 531 [U. S. Comp.
Read the full summary
This action is brought under section 6 of the act in regard to safety appliances, approved March 2, 1893, c. 196, 27 Stat. 532, as amended April 1, 1896, c. 87, 29 Stat. 85 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 3175], which provides a penalty of $100 for every violation of the act, and refers to the violation covered by section 2 of said act (27 Stat. 531 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 3174]. The material averments of the declaration are as follows: First, that the defendant is a common carrier engaged in interstate commerce by railroad; second, that on the 29th day of November, 1904, in the county of St.…
1Opinion of the Court
HUMPHREY,
District Judge (after the above statement of facts). The defendant at the time in question was a common carrier engaged in interstate commerce. The coupling device was defective and inoperative, and the car at the time in question was being used in moving interstate traffic. The evidence is conclusive upon all these points. The courts have spoken so frequently and so plainly in defining interstate commerce, and the use of cars engaged in such commerce, that it should suffice to say that the evidence adduced as to the character of the defendant as an interstate carrier, and of the…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- United States v. LacherSupreme Court of the United States · 1890
- People v. RobyMichigan Supreme Court · 1884
- People v. SnowbergerMichigan Supreme Court · 1897
- Commonwealth v. GrayMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1889
- State ex rel. Barton Co. v. Kansas City, Ft. S. & G. R.U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Western Missouri · 1887
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by13 opinions
- O'Donnell v. Elgin, Joliet & Eastern Railway Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1949
- St. Louis & S. F. R. Co. v. DelkCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1908
- United States v. Illinois Cent. R.District Court, W.D. Kentucky · 1907
- Hohenleitner v. Southern Pac. Co.District Court, D. Oregon · 1910
- Norfolk & W. Ry. Co. v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1910
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.