*1 UNITED STATES A P& TRUCKING CO. et al. Argued 32.
No. October 1958. Decided December Ralph S. Spritzer argued the cause for the' United States. him With on the brief were Assistant Attorney. General Anderson, Beatrice Rosenberg and M. Jerome Feit.
Anthony J. argued the cause for appellees. With Cioffi him on the brief August W. Heckman. delivered the opinion of the
Mr. Justice Harlan Court.
This case raises issues similar to those involved United States v. American Freightways Co., 352 1020, where a dismissal of an charging information partnership entity with violations of 18 S. was affirmed by an equally divided Court.
Appellees, two partnerships, were charged, as entities, in separate informations with violations of 18 U. which makes it criminal knowingly to violate Inter- safe Commission state “explosives commerce interstate transportation *2 Trucking P&A Appellee articles.” dangerous other violations numerous charged with also Company Car Motor of the (a) 222 (§ (a) 322§C. S.U. of 49 on dismissed, Court The District 1935).1 of Act. rier a partnership ground informations motion, involved. violating the of guilty entity cannot under this Court directly to appealed Government we 3731, and §C. U. S. Act, 18 Appeals the Criminal reasons For jurisdiction. probable noted informations hold below forth set erroneously dismissed. misdemeanor comprehensive (a), the 322§C.S.U. “any provides Carrier Motor of
provision provi any violating willfully and knowingly person Interstate II of the chapter [Part sion of this charged Company Trucking PA appellee & toas information through the trans S. C. U. § under offense an one count placard markings or without acid chromic by of truck portation other charged in 34 (a). It CFR 77.823 by 49 § ings prescribed consisting failure (a), C. S. 49 U. §322 under offenses counts examina physical prescribes 191.8, which CFR comply with count), violation (one trucks drivers certificates and tions requires (a), which Supp., 193.95 Pocket CFR, 1958Cum. of 49 (one extinguishers fire equipped trucks common-carrier forbids (a), which S. C. §306 49 U. count), violation without commerce interstate truck a common-carrier operation counts). informa (32 necessity of convenience a certificate charged.two violations Company Trucking Hopla appellee tion as methanol, a flammable shipped Hopla 835, in that C. of 18 required truck placarding marking or properly liquid, without pos having his driver (a), and without CFR §77.823 the outside required for labels showing prescribed paper session 77.817. by 49 CFR required methanol of the containers Trucking P against A & filing information Subsequent to fines increase amended (a) was S. Company, TJ. (a). V) (Supp. §322 See violation. for its provided or order requirement, any rule, regulation, [of or Act], or thereunder, Interstate Commerce Commission] license, or certificate, permit, any any term or condition provided, shall, herein penalty otherwise for which Motor . . . .” The be fined thereof, upon conviction the word its own definition Carrier Act also contains firm, any individual, means ‘person’ “The term “person”: association, joint- or corporation, company, copartnership, (Italics supplied.) . . . .” association; (a). §303 knowingly that “whoever 835§
18 U. S. C. regulations pertaining any regulation violates such [ICC shall be fined transport dangerous to the safe articles] than one or not more $1,000 imprisoned more than *3 regulations The section makes such both;....” or year, in interstate engaged “all common carriers” binding on chapter of a entitled 1, part And S. C. § commerce. U. light and in of which 835 must § “Rules of Construction” meaning determining that “in read, provides indicates other- any Congress, Act of unless the context include ‘person’ . . . the words and ‘whoever’ wise— firms, partnerships, corporations, companies, associations, stock as well indi- societies, joint companies, and (Italics . . . .” The word “who- viduals; supplied.) must, therefore, be construed § ever” partnerships to include “unless the context' indicates otherwise.” may pro- as entities We think (a) pur- ceeded under both and 835. The § § significant It is in 1 S. C. 1 definition “whoever” U. part very was first enacted into law as same statute which positive Criminal Code. 62 Stat. enacted into law revised (1948). The the Criminal connection between U. S. C. and very Code, 835, is thus more token which includes than a admonishing statute which the crime that “whoever” same creates liberally interpreted. is to be compliance to ensure is clear: of both
pose re- safety and other others, with carriers, among motor Com- by the Interstate laid down quirements regulate duty to statutory in the exercise mission In the for hire. of interstate operations makes no difference certainly it policy of this effectuation the infraction commits which the carrier whether a company, joint corporation, as a organized mischief proprietorship. or an individual nership, to make Congress think same, same. infraction consequences between made distinction law the common True, not a the latter deeming a partnership, corporation But the of suit. purposes separate rule, is not change the common-law Co., Express States doubted. See it done beyond dispute it think S. 381. We that sec- seen, “person” in as we have (a) for, 322§ so toAct in the Motor Carrier defined expressly tion is likewise has done think it partnerships. include in that section which nothing since we find so the word “whoever” applying to justify our not would includes in 1 which given the definition promul- makes partnerships. Section dangerous transportation by the ICC for gated In view of binding on all common carriers. articles *4 part- organized carriers are as many the fact that motor corporations, than as the conclusion nerships rather lightly reached the full subject gamut not be some carriers should infractions of ICC provided for sanctions they form under which merely because per- More organized particularly, to do business.3 3 Congress partnerships defini specifically included within the has showing large regulatory Acts, thus “person” in number of tion of a See, e. Aero- g., partnerships treat as entities. Civil intent to
125 have intended to why Congress reason ceive no criminally liable for make motor (a), but not for violations of 835.4 infractions of (§ 835) and argued “knowingly” It is the words willfully” (§ (a)) by implication “knowingly from coverage statutes, eliminate to its individual partnership, opposed because inability so act. But the same so to act ners, cannot true, course, regard corporations fact im- associations; yet elementary it is that such other personal guilty “knowing” entities can be or “willful” the doctrine of regulatory through violations of superior. Thus United States v. respondeat Co., supra, Express Co., in which the Adams Express “wilfully” re- indicted for joint association, stock in excess of its scheduled ceiving expressage sums for at rates, said, pp. Mr. Justice Holmes 389-390: many years notorious for that some “It been joint express* companies organized great the amend- and the reason for associations, intended to hardly ment could be seen unless was ' sug- As under the act. bring those associations no Government, gested argument have doubted certainly defendant, not the seems to duty to upon them the imposes that the statute now imposes upon if it file schedules rates.But carrier as common them the duties under words suppose that the same it is reasonable to interpreted, (27); Act, 979, Federal Communi- nautics 52 Stat. 49 U. S. C. § (i); Shipping Act, Act, 48 Stat. 47 U. S. C. cations §801; Tariff 46 Stat. Stat. (d). §1401 fine, imprisonment, as well as The fact for fines, violation, (a) provides does not whereas for its Supply Co., States Union different conclusion. Cf. lead *5 penalty the them upon impose to are intended words duties those case common on inflicted ... performed. are not The denied. hardly is Congress power “The corpora- against statute constitutionality of Hudson Central & York New established, is tions States, U. S. United R.R. Co. River has not Congress why is suggested reason and no awith assets charge equal far as to company so personify liability and com- byit aby proceeding fine collect believe what we That name. pany . . .” to do. is the same. case in this served policy merely the law free to break left entity cannot business case, part owners, stockholders because its participate personally not do present ners not may treasury business the infraction. which of violations fruits obtain impunity scope entity in by agents knowingly committed on those brought pressure Thus employment.5 of their abide agents their to see own the law.6 each can violate therefore, hold, from the apart quite question here as indi- the partners knowledge participation face, their on insufficient held were two informations Since allegations that their accept true purposes, present must, for inadvertently charged not .committed. the offenses by appellees, 909, relied States, v. United Gordon partners merely individual held contrary. That case to the is not violating Produc the Defense “willfully” be convicted could knowledge of the they had showing that without of 1950 tion Dotterweich, 320 States agents. Cf. their acts criminal individual to hold the not seek does the Government 277. Here as entities. only the partners, but *6 conviction corollary is, course,, viduals. The of the used the individual partnership punish of a cannot be completely personal guilt. free of partners, might who corporations, entity As in the case of the conviction of the firm’s assets. can lead to a fine levied the
Reversed. with whom Mr. Justice Mr. Justice Douglas, Black, and Mr. Justice Whittaker Frankfurter, Mr. Justice in concur, dissenting part. has unlike the Motor Carrier explicitly subjected partnerships liability,
not to criminal implied, I do liability not think that such should statute which should be dealing penal narrowly construed. United States v.
As Chief Justice Marshall wrote Wiltberger, penal “The rule that laws are 76, 95, Wheat. than strictly, perhaps to be construed not much less old construction itself. It is founded on the tenderness of plain the and on the rights individuals; law in principle punishment the is vested the in legislative, judicial department.” the approach not allow this criminal With we would corporation sanction to attach under 835. A 18 U. C. artificial, legally entity is an created that can have no “knowledge” “knowledge” only itself and is said to have the other hand a through employees. partnership On it. In A, B, compose means and C—the individuals who country entity theory general this the has not been extended to the sum- partnership. Judge Learned Hand Smith, Helvering history marized the 90 F. 2d way, 591-592. If Dean Ames had had his entity theory mercantile or of the partnership would prevailed. up have drafting But those who took his Partnership Uniform Act after death adhered to the common-law attitude toward a —that say, That is to individuals. aggregation an it is theory. entity than the rather aggregate adopted Act three-fourths in about inis force And that find cases today can reports combs One States. minor- they are theory. But espousing Professor theory. As the other reject consciously ity American main stream shown, the Williston treating course British follows nership law Part- The Uniform sense. pluralistic 196, 208. L. of Pa. Rev. nership Act, *7 statute, written this criminal assume therefore aggre- the conventional reflects background, partnership. theory of the entity, exceptional not the gate, liability depends where statute dealing with a areWe Inc., Lines, Motor Boyce as stated intent,” “culpable could partners States, United their em- the acts for responsible criminally held States, S. 909. Gordon ployees. aggregate more than no being partnership, Con- unless footing, same on the stand should partners, 1C. § Title 1 otherwise. explicitly gress part- to include any Act of “person” defines indicates otherwise.” context nership, “unless indicate otherwise does S. C. 835 context of U. it. The knowingly violate only those punishes there law teaches theory partnership aggregate is partner no liability where criminal no vicarious can be culpable. a criminal statute rule strict construction
If the narrowly be read 835 must obtain, If the law. prevailing view reflect imposing purpose of is to be entity theory applied assets, where on penalties criminal act, it any wrongful wholly innocent of ners Congress, unequivocal on the command be done Act. under the Motor Carrier the case