NY Central and Hudson v US

NY Central and Hudson v US - Page 1 2 of 9 DOCUMENTS NEW...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–2. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Page 1 2 of 9 DOCUMENTS NEW YORK CENTRAL AND HUDSON RIVER RAILROAD COMPANY v. UNITED STATES. No. 57. SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 212 U.S. 481; 29 S. Ct. 304; 53 L. Ed. 613; 1909 U.S. LEXIS 1832 Argued December 14, 15, 16, 1908. February 23, 1909, Decided PRIOR HISTORY: ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE SOUTHERN DIS- TRICT OF NEW YORK. THE facts are stated in the opinion. CASE SUMMARY: PROCEDURAL POSTURE: Defendant, a corporation, sought review of a decision of the Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern District of New York, which convicted defendant and its assistant traffic manager for the pay- ment of rebates upon shipments from the City of New York to the City of Detroit, Michigan. OVERVIEW: Defendant, a corporation, and its assistant traffic manager were convicted for the payment of rebates upon shipments from the City of New York to the City of Detroit. The court affirmed defendant's conviction, finding that the act of the agent, while exercising authority delegated to him to make rates for transportation, could be con- trolled, in the interest of public policy, by imputing his act to defendant and imposing penalties upon defendant. The court held that rebating under the federal statutes was a crime which could have been committed by a corporation. The court found there was no good reason why corporations could not be held responsible for and charged with the know- ledge and purposes of their agents, acting within the authority conferred upon them. If defendant had not been found criminally liable merely because it was a corporation, many such type of offenses would have gone unpunished. The court found that the statutes against rebates could not be effectually enforced so long as only individuals were subject to punishment for violations of the law when the giving of rebates inured to the benefit of corporations of which the indi- viduals were but the instruments. OUTCOME: The judgment of the lower court was affirmed on the basis that defendant corporation could have been held responsible for and charged with the knowledge and purposes of its agents, acting within the authority conferred upon them. The giving of the rebates inured to the benefit of the corporation. Statutes against rebates could not be effec- tually enforced so long as only individuals were subject to punishment for violation of the law. CORE TERMS: rebate, railroad, indictment, traffic manager, shipment, sugar, interstate commerce, carrier, pounds, shipper, transportation, sugar refining, freight, commit, legal rate, interstate, common carrier, public policy, published rates, criminally, omission, fine, equal rights, presumption of innocence, particularity, commerce, criminal prosecution, criminal offenses, authority conferred, commit a crime LexisNexis(R) Headnotes [HN1] See the Elkins Act, 32 Stat. 847.
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Image of page 2
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

This note was uploaded on 02/11/2012 for the course GENERAL ST 410 taught by Professor Huck during the Fall '11 term at Berea.

Page1 / 12

NY Central and Hudson v US - Page 1 2 of 9 DOCUMENTS NEW...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 2. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online