United States v. Atlantic Coast Line R.

Citations

• 153 F. 918
• 1907 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 310

Syllabus

<p>1. Railroads — Equipment of Cars — Safety Appliances — Violation of Statute — Penalty—Enforcement—Pleading.</p> <p>An action by the United States against a railroad company to recover penalties for violations of the safety appliance act of March 2, 1893 (27 Stat. 531, c. 196 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 3174]), is one of debt, and in such an action brought in North Carolina, where the pleading is governed by the state practice, it is not necessary that the complaint should allege a specific date in describing the violations.</p> <p>[Ed. Note. — Conformity of practice in common-law. actions to that of state court, see notes to O’Connell v. Reed, 5 C. C. A. 594, and Nederland Life Ins. Co. v. Hall, 27 C. O. A. 392.]</p> <p>2. Same — Burden of Proof.</p> <p>In an-action to recover penalties from a railroad company brought under section 6 of the safety appliance act (Act March 2, 1893, c. 196, 27 Stat. 53 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 3174]), as amended by Act April 1, 1896, c. 87, 29 Stat. 85, the burden rests upon the defendant to bring itself within the proviso, excepting from the provision of the act four-wheeled standard logging cars.</p> <p>[Ed. Note. — Duty of railroad companies to furnish safe appliances, see note to Eelton v. Bullard, 37 C. C. A. 8.]</p> <p>3. Same — Pleading.</p> <p>In such an action, it is not incumbent on the plaintiff to allege and .prove that the defendant had not used due care or ordinary diligence in-making an inspection or in repairing such defects as that inspection may have disclosed; the purpose of the statute being to make a railroad company liable unconditionally for its violation.</p> <p>4. Commerce — Railroad Regulation — Safety Appliance Act — Constitutionality.</p> <p>The federal safety appliance act (Act March 2, 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, and Act March 2, 1903, e. 976, 32 Stat. 943 [U. S. Comp. St. Supp. 1905, p. 603], is within the constitutio