United States v. Geddes
Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
In Error to the District Court of the United States for the Southern District of Ohio. This was a suit on behalf of the United States for the recovery of penalties provided by Act Cong. March 2, 1893, c. 196, § 6, 27 Stat. 532, as amended by Act Cong. April 1, 1896, c. S7, 29 Stat. 85 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 3175], known as the “Safety Appliance Act.”
Read the full summary
In Error to the District Court of the United States for the Southern District of Ohio. This was a suit on behalf of the United States for the recovery of penalties provided by Act Cong. March 2, 1893, c. 196, § 6, 27 Stat. 532, as amended by Act Cong. April 1, 1896, c. S7, 29 Stat. 85 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 3175], known as the “Safety Appliance Act.” The sections of the act involved are: “Section 1. That from and after the 1st day of January, 1898, it shall be unlawful for any common carrier engaged in interstate commerce by railroad to use on its line any locomotive engine in moving…
1Opinion of the CourtRichards, Circuit Judge
In the cases of The Daniel Ball, 10 Wall. 557, 565, 19 L. Ed. 999 (decided in 1870), and Coe v. Errol, 116 U. S. 517, 528, 6 Sup. Ct. 475; 479, 29 L. Ed. 715 (decided in 1885), it was held that:
*454“Whenever a commodity has begun to move as an article oí trade from one state to another, commerce in that commodity between the states has commenced.”
In the former case it is said:
“The fact that several different and independent agencies are employedin transporting the commodity, some acting entirely in one state, and some acting through two or more states, does in no respect affect the character of…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- The Daniel BallSupreme Court of the United States · 1871
- Coe v. ErrolSupreme Court of the United States · 1886
- Texas & Pacific Railway Co. v. Interstate Commerce CommissionSupreme Court of the United States · 1896
- 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
- Osborne v. FloridaSupreme Court of the United States · 1897
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by11 opinions
- United States v. Colorado & N. W. R. Co.Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1907
- Service v. Sumpter Valley Ry. Co.Oregon Supreme Court · 1918
- Belt Ry. Co. v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1909
- Gray v. Louisville & N. R.District Court, E.D. Tennessee · 1912
- United States v. Colorado & N. W. R. Co.Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1907
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.