United States v. Kansas Pac. Ry. Co.
Opinion of the Court
This suit is brought on the relation of John S. Pendery, to recover from the Kansas Pacific Railway Co. and others a large sum of money—$2,-287,280—as a statutory penalty or forfeiture for presenting to the treasury department of the United States for payment, and receiving payment thereon, a lot of claims and vouches for transporting troops, munitions of war, and military supplies over the railroad of the defendant company, from the. year 186S to 1873, which claims and vouchers the plaintiff alleges were false, fraudulent. and excessive.
The law under which this suit is brought being a penal statute, it should not be enlarged by implication, but should be strictly construed. [Tiffany v. Bank of Missouri] 18 Wall. [85 U. S.] 409; U. S. v. Clayton [Case No. 14,814]. Under the common law of England, corporations could be indicted for misfeasance and nonfeasance, and the same principle has been recognized by many of the state courts in this country. It being settled, however, that there are no common-law of-fences cognizable by the United States courts, but only such as are declared so by act of congress, it may be questioned whether the federal courts would follow the English rule on this subject. But that question is not important in this case.
If possible, in construing statutes, the legislative intent must be ascertained from the words of the act itself; and as the last act does not seem to indicate an intention to en-' large the scope of the act of 1863, but merely to arrange its provisions under different sections and titles, we may well look to the original act for light on this subject. Did section 3 contemplate bringing corporations within its provisions? It would seem not. It provides that every person, not in the military or naval forces, who shall commit the net, in addition to the penalty and forfeiture, may be imprisoned, etc. Section 543S. Revised Statutes, has the same provisions. These statutes evidently refer to such a class as are capable of being employed in the land or naval forces, or in the militia. It is further provided, in section 5 of the first act, that, in.a suit to recover this forfeiture and damages, such person may be arrested and held to bail. The same provision is contained in section 3492 of the Revision. These various provisions of the law indicate to my mind that, in using the word person in the act of 1863, and in the Revised Statutes, it was the intention to restrict it to individuals, and not to make it applicable to corporations.
The demurrer to the petition will, therefore, be sustained.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.