« AnteriorContinuar »
October 30, 1916. Per Curiam: Dismissed Hooker, 233 U. S. 97, 110–113, 58 L. ed. for want of jurisdiction upon the authority (868, 875, 876, L.R.A.1915B, 450, 34 Sup. of: (1) Deming v. Carlisle Packing Co. 226 Ct. Rep. 526, Ann. Cas. 1915D, 593; LouisU. S. 102, 105, 57 L. ed. 140, 142, 33 Sup. ville & N. R. Co. v. Maxwell, 237 U. S. 94, Ct. Rep. 80; Consolidated Turnp. Co. v. 97, 98, 59 L. ed. 853, 855, L.R.A.1915E, 665, Norfolk & 0. V. R. Co. 228 U. S. 596, 600, P.U.R.1915C, 300, 35 Sup. Ct. Rep. 494. 57 L. ed. 982, 983, 33 Sup. Ct. Rep. 609; Ennis Waterworks v. Ennis, 233 U. S. 652, 658, 58 L. ed. 1139, 34 Sup. Ct. Rep. MARTIN H. FREE, Plaintiff in Error, v.
WESTERN UNION TELEGRAPH COMPANY. 767; Parker v. McLain, 237 U. S. 469, 471, 472, 59 L. ed. 1051, 1053, 1054, 35 Sup. Ct.
(No. 36.] Rep. 632; (2) Shoemaker v. United States, In Error to the Supreme Court of the 147 U. S. 282, 321, 37 L. ed. 170, 188, 13 State of Wisconsin. Sup. Ct. Rep. 361; Prosser v. Northern P. Mr. Benjamin I. Salinger for plaintiff in R. Co. 152 U. S. 59, 38 L. ed. 352, 14 Sup.error. Ct. Rep. 528; Bauman v. Ross, 167 U. S. Mr. Rush Taggart for defendant in 548, 596, 42 L. ed. 270, 290, 17 Sup. Ct. error. Rep. 966; Ramapo Water Co. v. New York, October 30, 1916. Per Curiam: Dismissed 236 U. S. 579, 59 L. ed. 731, 35 Sup. Ct. for want of_jurisdiction upon the author. Rep. 442.
ity of: (1) Deming v. Carlisle Packing Co. 226 U. S. 102, 105, 57 L. ed. 140, 142, 33 Sup. Ct. Rep. 80; Consolidated Turnp. Co.
v. Norfolk & O. V. R. Co. 228 U. S. 596, RIGIT REVEREND LIBERT HUBERT BOEY 600, 57 L. ed. 982, 983, 33 Sup. Ct. Rep.
NAEMS, Bishop of Zeugma, Vicar Apos- 609; Ennis Waterworks v. Ennis, 233 U. S. tolic of Hawaii, Trustee, Plaintiff in 652, 658, 58 L. ed. 1139, 1141, 34 Sup. Ct. Error, v. L. AH LEONG. (No. 28.) Rep. 767; Parker v. McLain, 237 U. S. 469,
In Error to the Supreme Court of the 471, 472, 59 L. ed. 1051, 1053, 1054, 35 Territory of Hawaii.
Sup. Ct. Rep. 632; (2) John v. Paullin, Mr. Lorrin Andrews for plaintiff in error. 231 U. S. 583, 585, 586, 58 L. ed. 381-383,
Mr. David L. Withington for defendant 34 Sup. Ct. Rep. 178; McDonald v. Oregon in error.
R. & Nav. Co. 233 U. S. 665, 669, 670, 58 October 30, 1916. Per Curiam: Judgment L. ed. 1145, 1148, 34 Sup. Ct. Rep. 772; affirmed with costs upon the authority of (3) Simon v. Craft, 182 U. S. 427, 437, Lewers & Cooke v. Atcherly, 222 U. S. 285, 45 L. ed. 1165, 1171, 21 Sup. Ct. Rep. 836; 294, 56 L. ed. 202, 205, 32 Sup. Ct. Rep. Louisville & N. R. Co. v. Schmidt, 177 U. 94; John Ii Estate v. Brown, 235 U. S.S. 230, 44 L. ed. 747, 20 Sup. Ct. Rep. 620. 342, 349, 59 L. ed. 259, 265, 35 Sup. Ct. Rep. 106; Kapiolani Estate v. Atcherley, 238 U. S. 119, 136, 59 L. ed. 1229, 1237, 35 | CITY OF MONTGOMERY, Plaintiff in Error, v. Sup. Ct. Rep. 832; Cardona v. Quiñones,
R. H. GREENE et al. [No. 41]; and 240 U. S. 83, 88, 60 L. ed. 538, 540, 36 Sup.
CITY or MONTGOMERY, Plaintiff in Error, Ct. Rep. 346.
v. W. R. MoDadE et al. (No. 42].
In Error to the Supreme Court of the State of Alabama.
Mr. W. A. Gunter for plaintiff in error. SOUTHERN RAILWAY, CAROLINA DIVISION, No counsel appeared for defendants in
Plaintiff in Error, v. FANNIE G. DRIGGS error. and her Husband, H. D. Driggs [No. 31); October 30, 1916. Per Curiam: Dismissed and SOUTHERN RAILWAY, CAROLINA DI- for want of jurisdiction upon the authority VISION, Plaintiff in Error, v. HUBERT of: (1) Deming v. Carlisle Packing Co. 226 DRIGGS, by His Guardian ad Litem, H. D. U. S. 102, 105, 57 L. ed. 140, 142, 33 Sup. Driggs (No. 32).
Ct. Rep. 80; Consolidated Turnp. Co. v. In Error to the Supreme Court of the Norfolk & O. V. R. Co. 228 U. S. 596, 600, State of South Carolina.
57 L. ed. 982, 983, 33 Sup. Ct. Rep. 609; Messrs. John K. Graves and Benjamin Ennis Waterworks v. Ennis, 233 U. S. 652, Lindsey Abney for plaintiff in error. 658, 58 L. ed. 1139, 1141, 34 Sup. Ct. Rep.
Mr. Stanwix G. Mayfield for defendants 767; Parker v. McLain, 237 U. S. 469, 471, in error.
472, 59 L. ed. 1051, 1053, 1054, 35 Sup. Ct. October 30, 1916. Per Curiam: Judg- Rep. 632; (2) Stewart v. Kansas City, 239 ments reversed with costs upon the author. U. S. 14, 16, 60 L. ed. 120, 121, 36 Sup. ity of Kansas City Southern R. Co. v. Ca Ct. Rep. 15; Sioux County v. Rule, 241 U. 227 U. S. 639, 653, 57 L. ed. 683, 688, 33 S. 640, 60 L. ed. 1216, 36 Sup. Ct. Rep. Sup. Ct. Rep. 391; Boston & M. R. Co. v. 285.
MOTION PICTURE PATENTS COMPANY, Peti- | ENNIS-BROWN COMPANY, Petitioner, v. CEN
tioner, v. UNIVERSAL FILM MANUFACTUR- TRAL PACIFIC RAILWAY COMPANY. (No. ING COMPANY et al. [No. 715.]
728.] Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
the Ninth Circuit. Mr. Melville Church for petitioner. Mr. Burrell G. White for petitioner.
Messrs. Edmund Wetmore and Oscar W. Messrs. W. H. Devlin, Robert T. Devlin, Jeffery for respondents.
William R. Harr, and Charles H. Bates for October 30, 1916. Granted.
October 30, 1916. Denied.
NORTHERN PACIFIC RAILWAY COMPANY,
Plaintiff in Error, v. WILFRED L. GIF. JOHN W. THOMPSON, Petitioner, v. FRANK
FORD. (No. 307.) LIN NATIONAL BANK. (No. 717.)
In Error to the Supreme Court of the Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the State of Idaho. Court of Appeals of the District of Colum- Messrs. C. W. Bunn, James E. Babb, and bia.
Alexander Britton for plaintiff in error. Messrs. William E. Davis and George H. No counsel appeared for defendant in erLamar for petitioner.
ror. Mr. John Ridout for respondent.
October 30, 1916. Dismissed with costs, October 30, 1916. Denied.
on motion of counsel for the plaintiff in error.
(242 U. S. 190) UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Peti. , the government, which was reversed by the tioner,
circuit court of appeals for the eighth cir.
cuit (L.R.A. 1917A, 1198, 129 C. C. A. 514, NORTHERN PACIFIC RAILWAY COM 213 Fed. 162). The case is here for decision PANY, Respondent.
on writ of certiorari. MASTER AND SERVANT 13 GOVERN
MENTAL CONTROL-REPORTS HONEST Statement by Mr. Justice Clarke:
The judgment of the district court was The penalty of $100 per day pre- rendered on the pleadings, the admitted scribed by the Act of February 4, 1887 (24 facts of the case being as follows: Stat. at L. 386, chap. 104), § 20, as amend. ed by the Act of June 18, 1910 (36 Stat. at
Five employees of the defendant were L. 556, chap. 309, Comp. Stat. 1913, § 8592), called to take charge of a wrecking train for the failure of a carrier to file such re- at 8:10 o'clock P. M., October 29, 1911, but, ports as may be required by the Interstate before they reported at the place of duty, Commerce Commission, will not be exacted it was ascertained that such train would because the names of several employees were not be needed, and when they arrived they omitted by the carrier from its sworn re
were notified that their services would not port of violations of the Hours-of-Service then be required, but that they should reAct of March 4, 1907 (34 Stat. at L. 1415, chap: 2939, Comp. Stat. 1913, § 8677), port for duty at 10:35 o'clock P. M. the same which was required by an order of the In- evening. From 8:10 to 10:35 o'clock they terstate Commerce Commission, where such did not render any service "save that they omission was caused by an honest mistake kept alive the fire in the engine during said in a genuinely doubtful case.
period.” At 10:35 o'clock the five men (Ed. Note.-For other cases. see Master and entered upon a freight train run, which, beServant, Cent. Dig. $ 14; Dec. Dig. 13.)
cause of hot boxes, was delayed so that it [No. 44.)
did not arrive at destination until 1:15
o'clock P. M. the next day. Argued October 27, 1916. Decided Decem
If the service of the men were considered ber 4, 1916.
as beginning at 8:10 o'clock, the hour for
which they were called, they were on duty V WRIT of Certiorari to the United for seventeen hours and five minutes; but
States Circuit Court of Appeals for the if the time were reckoned from 10:35 P. M., Eighth Circuit to review a judgment which when the men actually took charge of the reversed a judgment of the District Court freight train, they were on duty less than for the District of North Dakota in favor sixteen hours. It is admitted that the of. of the United States in an action to recover ficials of the railway company believed in a penalty from a carrier for its failure to good faith that the time of the men should file a report of violations of the Hours-of- be reckoned from 10:35 P. m., and not from Service Act. Affirmed.
8:10 P, M., and that, for that reason, when See same case below, L.R.A. 1917A, 1198, next after October 30th, 1911, they filed 129 C. C. A. 514, 213 Fed. 162.
their report of employees subject to the This is a civil proceeding brought by the act who had been kept on duty for a longer United States in the United States district period than sixteen hours, the names of the court for the district of North Dakota, to members of this crew were omitted, al. recover $500 from the Northern Pacific Rail, though the names of many other employees way Company for the claimed failure to who had been kept on duty longer than tho file, for five successive days, with the Inter statutory limit were stated in that report. state Commerce Commission, a report of It was conceded at the hearing in the violations of the Hours-of-Service Act, as circuit court of appeals that the United required by an order of the Commission States had sued the company for the "for. issued June 28, 1911. The order was made feitures" prescribed for these excessive serv. under authority of § 20 of the Act to ices under discussion in this case, and had Regulate Commerce (24 Stat. at L. 386, secured a judgment which had been paid, chap. 104), as amended June 18th, 1910 and that thereby it was determined, for the (36 Stat. at L. 539, 556, chap. 309, Comp. purposes of this suit, that these employees Stat. 1913, § 8592), and has the force of were on duty from 8:10 o'clock P. m., and statute law. It requires the carrier to re. therefore for more than sixteen hours. port "under oath" within thirty days after The government's claim in the case is for the end of each month, all instances where the omission for five days to file the report, employees have been on duty for a longer and it prays judgment for "forfeitures” ag. period than that provided in said act, which gregating $500, although when the com. in this case was sixteen hours.
plaint was filed the report claimed to be The district court rendered judgment for defective had been on file from November
Om For other cases see same topic & KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests & Indexes
30th, 1911, to September 14th, 1912, and | The defendant in error contends that judg. if the "forfeitures" of $100 per day pre- ment is asked for an omission caused by an scribed by the law for each day of failure to honest mistake with respect to a genuinely file & proper report were allowed, the doubtful case in a report which was propamount of recovery by the government erly filed, and this, it is claimed, is not a would be $28,900, and it is only by grace of violation of the law. The statute is a penal the public officials that the claim in the one and should be applied only to cases suit was not for this amount instead of for coming plainly within its terms. Provi. $500.
dence Steam-Engine Co. v. Hubbard, 101 U.
S. 188, 25 L. ed. 786. While the reports Assistant Attorney General Underwood filed must be truthful reports (Yates v. for petitioner.
Jones Nat. Bank, 206 U. S. 158, 51 L. ed. Messrs. Emerson Hadley and Charles 1002, 27 Sup. Ct. Rep. 638), yet, since they W. Bunn for respondento
must be made under oath, the penalties for
perjury would seem to be the direct and sufMr. Justice Clarke, after making the ficient sanction relied upon by the lawmak. foregoing statement, delivered the opinion ing power to secure their correctness. of the court:
We are confirmed in this conclusion by It will be seen from the foregoing state the fact that the annual report required ment of facts that the question presented of carriers by this same § 20 of the act by the record in this case for decision is: calls for so great an amount of detailed Assuming that the law required that, in the information that it would be difficult, if not report of the company filed on November impossible, for anyone to prepare such a 30th, 1911, the names of these five employees report without making some unintentional of the defendant should have been included omission or mistake, and we cannot bring as having been on duty for more than six. ourselves to think that Congress intended teen hours, and that their names were omit. to punish such an innocent mistake or omis. ted from that report because it was in good sion with a penalty of $100 a day. faith believed that their hours of service There are, to be sure, many statutes should be computed from 10:35 o'clock P. M., which punish violations of their requireand that, therefore, they had not been on ments regardless of the intent of the per. duty in excess of sixteen hours, is the com- sons violating them; but innocent mistakes, pany liable for the “forfeitures" prescribed made in reporting facts, where the circumby the statute, judgment for which was stances are such that candid-minded men prayed for in the complaint ?
may well differ in their conclusions with Section 20 of the Act to Regulate Inter. respect to them, should not be punished by state Commerce of February 4, 1887, as exacting penalties, except where the ex. amended June 18, 1910 (36 Stat. at L. 556, press letter of the statute so requires; and chap. 309, Comp. Stat. 1913, § 8592), re- we conclude that the section under discug. quires the filing of elaborate annual reports sion contains no such requirement. In re. by carriers and also the filing of such ports in which a mistake is much more special reports as the Commission may, by likely to prove harmful than in such a regeneral or special order, require. On the port as we have here, the national banking 28th day of June, 1911, the Commission laws punish mistakes only where “knowingordered that all carriers subject to the ly's made. provisions of the act should report "under It is argued that if good faith will ex. oath" within thirty days after the end of cuse an omission or a mistaken statement each month all instances of employees who in this report, it will be widely taken adhad been on duty for a longer time than vantage of as a cover for making false and that required by the act. It is for viola fraudulent statements in such reports in tion of this order, which has the effect of the future. Such a prospect seems quite statute law, that this suit was instituted, groundless, since many, if not most, crimit being admitted by the government that inal laws imposing penalties are made apthe failure to mention these five men in the plicable only in cases where corrupt intent report by the defendant, filed at the proper or purpose is established to the satisfaction time, and which contained a report of many of a court or jury; yet such requirement men kept on duty for a period longer than has not been found in practice to be an en. the time allowed by law, was due to the couragement to wrongdoing. fact that it in good faith believed that these The fact that the government sues for men commenced their time of service at only one-fifty-seventh part of the forfeitures 10:35 instead of at 8:10 o'clock, and that which had accrued under the construction therefore they were not on duty more than of the rule and statute contended for by it the sixteen hours prescribed by the statute.' should make us slow to attribute to Con.
gress a purpose to exact what is thus ad. sion relieving the carrier in certain remitted to be a punishment greatly dispro- spects from the operation of the long-andportionate to the offense. Statutes should short-haul clause of the act of February be construed, as far as possible, so that 4, 1887 (24 Stat. at L. 380, chap. 104), those subject to their control may, by refer- $4, as amended by the act of June 18, 1910
(36 Stat. at L. 547, chap. 309, Comp. Stat. ence to their terms, ascertain the measure 1913, § 8566), are afforded ample remedy of their duty and obligation, rather than by the provisions of 88. 13, 15, for comthat such measure should be dependent upon plaints to the Commission and action by the discretion of executive officers, to the such Commission on complaints or on its end that ours may continue to be a govern- own initiative, and they may not seek rement of written laws rather than one of dress in the courts by way of injunction official grace.
after having been refused a rehearing by It being very clear that it is not the pur. carriers' applications, to which the com
the Commission in the proceedings upon the pose of the law under discussion to punish munities and shippers were not parties. honest mistakes, made in a genuinely doubt
(Ed. Note.-For other cases, see Commerce, ful case, the decision of the Circuit Court Cent. Dig. 146; Dec. Dig. ww 96.] of Appeals is affirmed.
COMMERCE 85 - INTERSTATE COMMERCE
COMMISSION-RATE REGULATION – LONG
3. The Interstate Commerce Commis. (242 U. 9. 178) UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Inter- west-bound transcontinental freight to cer
sion, in permitting carriers to charge on state Commerce Commission, Atchison, tain ports of call a lesser rate than to cerTopeka, & Santa Fe Railway Company, tain interior coast cities, did not violate et al., Appts.,
the clause added to the act of February 4,
1887 (24 Stat. at L. 380, chap. 104), § 4, MERCHANTS' & MANUFACTURERS' by the act of June 18, 1910 (36 Stat. at L
TRAFFIC ASSOCIATION OF SACRA- 547, chap. 309, Comp. Stat. 1913, § 8566), MENTO et al.
which provides that “whenever a carrier
by railroad shall, in competition with a COMMERCE 88 - INTERSTATE COMMERCE water route or routes, reduce the rates on
COMMISSION POWERS - RATE REGULA- the carriage of any species of freight to or TION-LONG AND SHORT HAULS.
from competitive points, it shall not be 1. An order of the Interstate. Com- permitted to increase such rates unless merce Commission relieving carriers in cer-after hearing by the Interstate Commerce tain respects from the operation of the Commission it shall be found that such prolong-and-short-haul clause of the Act of posed increase rests upon changed condiFebruary 4, 1887 (24 Stat. at L. 380, chap. tions other than the elimination of water 104), § 4, as amended by the Act of June competition," where it was the increased 18, 1910 (36 Stat. at L. 547, chap. 309, effectiveness of water competition, due to Comp. Stat. 1913, § 8566), need not be the opening of the Panama canal, which based upon an application asking only the compelled the rate readjustment of which precise relief granted; and such an order the interior coast cities complain, and the is, therefore, not invalid because the car, higher rates to such cities, made under. auriers asked leave to charge on west-bound thority of the Commission, were granted transcontinental freight to a number of after prolonged hearings, as part of the coast and interior points much less than general readjustment of transcontinental to intermountain territory, and the Com- rates. mission, while permitting them to charge
[Ed. Note.-For other cases, see Commerce, to ports of call as much less as the applica- Cent. Dig. $ 138; Dec. Dig. Om 85.] tion requested, as to the other points, which were interior cities, permitted the carriers
[No. 452.] to charge only somewhat less, since such amended section not only empowers the Argued October 19, 1916. Decided DecemCommission "upon application" to author
ber 4, 1916. ize a carrier "to charge” less for longer than commission to prescribe from time to A United States for the Northern Dis
of time the extent to which the designated carriers may be relieved from the operation of trict of California to review a decree ensuch section.
joining the enforcement of an order of the
Interstate Commerce Commission, relieving [Ed. Note.- For other cases, see Cent, Dig. 88 139, 141; Dec. Dig. Om 88.] certain carriers in certain respects from the COMMERCE OX96 – INTERSTATE COMMERCE operation of the long-and-short-haul clause COMMISSION
SUSPENDING LONG-AND-l of the Interstate Commerce Act. Reversed SHORT-HAUL CLAUSE REMEDY OF AG
and remanded, with directions to dismiss GRIEVED COMMUNITY OR SHIPPER. 2. Communities or shippers aggrieved
the bill. by tariff schedules filed conformably to an
See same case below, 231 Fed. 292. order of the Interstate Commerce Commis. The facts are stated in the opinion.
For other cases see same topic & KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests & Indexes