Source: https://case-law.vlex.com/vid/358-u-s-121-606576834
Timestamp: 2020-08-14 04:12:09
Document Index: 553703316

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 222', '§ 835', '§ 222', '§ 835', '§ 835', '§ 322', '§ 222', '§ 3731', '§ 835']

358 U.S. 121 (1958), 32, United States v. A & P Trucking Co. - Federal Cases - Case Law - VLEX 606576834
Docket Nº: No. 32
Citation: 358 U.S. 121, 79 S.Ct. 203, 3 L.Ed.2d 165
Party Name: United States v. A & P Trucking Co.
Case Date: December 08, 1958
358 U.S. 121 (1958)
79 S.Ct. 203, 3 L.Ed.2d 165
A & P Trucking Co.
A partnership may be prosecuted as an entity under § 222(a) of the Motor Carrier Act for "knowingly and willfully" violating certification requirements and motor carrier regulations of the Interstate Commerce Commission and under 18 U.S.C. § 835 for "knowingly" violating regulations for the safe transportation in interstate commerce of explosives and other dangerous articles. Pp. 121-127.
(a) The words "knowingly and willfully" in § 222(a) and the word "knowingly" in § 835 do not eliminate partnerships from the coverage of these statutes. Pp. 125-126.
This case raises issues similar to those involved in United States v. American Freightways Co., 352 U.S. 1020, where a dismissal of an information charging a partnership entity with violations of 18 U.S.C. § 835 [79 S.Ct. 205] was affirmed by an equally divided Court.
Commerce Commission regulations for the safe transportation in interstate commerce of "explosives and other dangerous articles." Appellee A & P Trucking Company was also charged with numerous violations of 49 U.S.C. § 322(a) (§ 222(a) of the Motor Carrier Act of 1935).1 The District Court dismissed, on motion, the informations on the ground that a partnership entity cannot be guilty of violating the statutes involved. The Government appealed directly to this Court under the Criminal Appeals Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3731, and we noted probable jurisdiction. 356 U.S. 917. For reasons set forth below, we hold that the informations were erroneously dismissed.
any person knowingly and willfully violating any provision of this chapter (Part II of the Interstate Commerce
Act), or any rule, regulation, requirement, or order [of the Interstate Commerce Commission] thereunder, or any term or condition of any certificate, permit, or license, for which a penalty is not otherwise herein provided, shall, upon conviction thereof, be fined. . . .
The term "person" means any individual, firm, copartnership, corporation, company, association, or joint-stock association; . . .
whoever knowingly violates any such regulation [ICC regulations pertaining to the safe transport of dangerous articles] shall be fined not more one year, or both; . . .
in determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, unless the context indicates otherwise -- . . . the words "person" and "whoever" include corporations, companies, associations, firms, partnerships, societies, and joint stock companies, as [79 S.Ct. 206] well as individuals; . . .
(Italics supplied.) The word "whoever" in 18 U.S.C. § 835 must, therefore, be construed to include partnerships "unless the context indicates otherwise."2
True, the common law made a distinction between a corporation and a partnership, deeming the latter not a separate entity for purposes of suit. But the power of Congress to change the common law rule is not to be doubted. See United States v. Adams Express Co., 229 U.S. 381...