SUPREME LODGE, KNIGHTS OF PYTHIAS,

v.

EISER

Citator

Cited By

• Schroble v. Lehigh Valley R. Co., 62 F.2d 993 (2d Cir. 1933)
  …A § 9j is violated, even though the minimum percentage requirement is met, if all power braked ears in the train other than those coupled at the end of the train are not under tho brake control of tho engineer. New York Cent. R. R. v. United States, 265 U. S. 41, 44 S. Ct. 436, 68 L. Ed. 892. Because sparks were seen flying underneath the truck of one of the ears prior to the derailment, it is argued that the power brake was out of order. Such an inference, if permissible at all, must be based largely on t…
• Richmond v. Brooks, 197 F.2d 404 (D.C. Cir. 1952)
  …rued in keeping with its purpose, Lilly v. Grand Trunk & Western R. Co., 1943, 317 U.S. 481, 486, 63 S.Ct. 347, 87 L.Ed. 411, namely, to promote the safety of trains and of persons and property thereon. New York Central R. R. v. United States, 1924, 265 U.S. 41, 44-45, 44 S.Ct. 436, 68 L.Ed. 892. This reading of the Act in its present application means no more than that its provision for power or train brakes to control the speed of the train in place of common hand brakes, contemplates an air brake system…
• United States v. N. Pac. Ry. Co., 77 F.2d 587 (9th Cir. 1935)
  …the rear of the train at Paradise to avoid liability for the statutory penalty. To support its contention that the disabled car should have been switched to the rear of the train, appellant relies upon the case of New York Central R. Co. v. U. S., 265 U. S. 41, 44 S. Ct. 436, 438, 68 L. Ed. 892. In that case the Supreme Court held that it was a violation of section 2 of the Act of March 2, 1903, 45 USCA § 9, as supplemented by the Commission’s order of June 6, 1910, to haul cars whose power brakes became…