Chicago, B. & Q. R. v. United States
Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
In Error to the District Court of the United States for the Western District of Missouri; Arba S. Van Valkenburgh, Judge. Action by the United States against the Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad Company. Judgment for the United States, and defendant brings error.
1Opinion of the Court
AMIDON, District Judge.
The government brought this action recover penalties for violations of Safety Appliance Act, Act March *142, 1893, c. 196, 27 Stat. 531 (U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 3174) as amended by Act April 1, 1896, c. 87, 29 Stat. 85 (U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 3175), and Act March 2, 1903, c. 976, 32 Stat. 943 (U. S. Comp. St. Supp. 1911, p. 1314).
The first count is based upon section 2. It charges defendant with using on its line a car when the coupling apparatus of the “A.” end thereof was out of repair and inoperative. The issues upon this count were submitted to a jury, and resulted…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Johnson v. Southern Pacific Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1904
- Gilbert v. Burlington, C. R. & N. Ry. Co.Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1904
- Morris v. Duluth, S. S. & A. Ry. Co.Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1901
- Johnson v. Southern Pac. Co.Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1902
- United States v. Pere Marquette R.District Court, W.D. Michigan · 1913
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by28 opinions
- Chesapeake & O. Ry. Co. v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1915
- Baltimore & O. S. W. R. v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1917
- La Mere v. Railway Transfer Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1914
- Geraghty v. Lehigh Valley R. Co.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1934
- United States v. Chicago & A. R.Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1918
23 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.