Richmond times-dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1914-current, 1915-09-15
EDERAL COURT DEFINES
SAFETY APPLIANCE ACT
lportant Opinion Is Handed Down
in United States Circuit
Court OF Appeals.
OVER COURT IS REVERSED

1esapeake and Ohio Is Held Re.
sponslble for Injury Resulting
From Use of Defective Car-Other
Opinions Are Announced.
In an opinion handed down yester-
V by Judge Knapp. the United States
rcuit Court OF Appeals held that IL
coupling apparatus of its car was
of order and unavoidable when II
oved It's train from the Second Street
| rds to Forbes's siding, the Chesa-
AXE and Ohio Railway Company was
bic. under the Federal SAFETY ap-
ance act. whether 1t was ignorant
the defect or not The opinion re-
rises the decision Of the United States
strict Court for the Eastern Dis
CT OF Virginia, which had decided
favor Of the defendant On the
cohd count against the railway COM
ny. in which il was alleged that the
mpany hauled a train Of cars in
inst"- service without having the
quircd percentage Of cars operated
IN the power or train brake sys-
m. the decision of the lower court
ainst the company was affirmed
FELr APPLIANCE ACT
REQ uIRES AUTOMATIC COUPLEItS
Under the safety appliance act IL
III or permit To be hauled or used
It's line any car used in moving
tcrstate tariff not equipped with
upiers coupling automatically by i'm
CT. and which cannot he uncoupled
thout the necessity of men going
tween the cars. In this case It was
oven that the clevis OF this partic-
Ar car was out of condition when
train left the Second Streets Yards
Forhcs's siding TO be unloaded
me company testified that tho
ip!er was in good condition when
car ran Into Fulton Yards from
trip. that IT had no inspector at the
cond Street Yard. 10 which il had
en- transferred. and that, as soon as
defect was discovered at the Forbes
llnS the car was sidetracked until
could be taken TO Fulton Yards
repairs. II commended that, under
ESQ circumstances. II was not liable
der the law.
The second count OF the Indictment
arged violation OF the safety appl!-
&c act in moving drag" OF ffty-
cars over the main line from the
i!ion Yards TO the Albemarle Paper
ant with power or train brakes in
Grafton on only twelve cars. The
provides that such brakes must
used on So per cent o. the cars.
The company contcnded that the law
cs not apply TO drag" Of cars in
tnsfer service.
iroKTANT OPINIONS
ARE HANDED DOWN
The court announced and hanaod
"n opinions as follows:
80. 1899, southern Express Conoany
A'ht!H IN error. vs. e. j. Reapin do
hdaHt III error; error 10 the District
u'l At Columbia. s. c. Opinion bv
age Pritchard. Affirmed
40 1856, the Coal and Iron Railway
',rahE' plaintiff in error vs. Peter
Keherd. receiver of the late firm OF
alton. Purcell, Norman & Co, e. Al
'cH"ants in error; error TO the Dis
ct Court at Martlnsbury. w. Va
Union by Judge pritcha.d Reversed
40 1902 George ". Snyder. ct al, APP
lhnts. vs.. Upper Elk Coal COMPANY
pei'ee' arpeal from the District
u!t at Phii!ppi. w. Va. Opinion by
GEe Pr!tcharG. Affirmed
No. 1862 Davis Trust COMPANY o,
k'ns w Va appellant. VS. Samuel K.
l!th. curator Of the estate OF Elise D.
Ice. deceased. appellee; appeal from
District Court at Martinsbure. w.
I" Opinion by Judge Pritchard. Az
No. 1929. Chesapeake and Ohio Rail-
~ Company. plaintiff in error and
7, :.
atcs, defendant in error and cross
iin'in In error; on cross wri,s of
ROY 10 the District Court al Richmond.
Opinion by Judge knapp Re-
rseG on nrst count and affirmed on
cond count.
No 1897, Homer Adams trustee. Of
estate of Creed Collins. individual
and 5 member OF the partnership
the Collins Company. bankrupt, ap-
\
Hi!!, late partners trading as Brown
H!l!. appcilces. appeal from the Dis
CT Court at Parkersburg. W. Va.
Union by Judge Knapp. Reversed.
No 1898, Penn Bridge Company and
Dallam DBrien, appellants and cross
'peliees, VS.. County OF Kershaw, ap-
alec and cross-appeliant; on cross-ap-
ais from The District Court at
:arlcston. 5. q. Opinion by Judge
napp. Affirmed.
No 1871, E. l.. Moore & Co. E. L.
pore, Mamie p. Moore, " H. Sprent,
J.. Wallace and l.. II. Cottingham,
pellants, vs. William Murchison.
'istee in bankruptcy of F. L. Moore &
mpany. bankrupt. appellee: appeal
Dm the District Court at Charleston,
-. Opinion By Judge Knapp. Affirmed
no 1916, H. =. Dunlap. appellant. VS..
kin City Power Company, appellee:
tpeal from the District Court at
.eenv!llc. 5. {. Opinion by Judge
.oods. Affirmed.
no. l3i5, George Dow. appellant. VS..
y United States of America and the
bnoTab!c the Secretary of Labor Of
!. United states, appellees: appeal
BIN the District Court at Charleston,
G. Opinion by Judge Woods. Re-
rscd.
no l3i7. Standard Engineering Com
my and II. h. Stokes. plaintiffs in
ror. vs. Oriental Bulkhead and I'm
ovcment Company, defendant in
cor: error to the District Court at
.w Fern, y. C. Opinion by Judge
GODS. Affirmed.
No 1857. Randwyk Steamship Com
ny. owner. and Holland American
ne. charterer, claimants of steamship
lndwyk. appellants. VS.. Piedmont-Mt
Try Guano Company, appellee; appeal
PIN tho District Court at Baltimore,
u. Opinion by Judge Woods. Affirmed.
NO. 1862. J. Fl. Lane G. Co. and John
Tailman. appellants. VS.. Maple Cot
\ Mills, ct nj, appellees; appeal from
y District COURT at Charleston, S. c.
Union by Judge Woods. Affirmed.