AUTOMATIC TRAIN CONTROL DEVICES. See SAFETY APPLIANCES.
BACK HAULS. See OUT-OF-LINE AND BACK HAULS.
Rates between competitive points, such as Birmingham, Ala., and Athens,
Ga., have their origin in depressed rates reflecting the so-called basing-
point system, under which the rates between competitive points are rela-
tively lower than rates to, from, and between other points where such
competition does not exist. Globe Superior Corp. v. Southern Ry. Co.,
456 (457).
Value of Commodity: Bakelite Corp. v. Boston & Albany R., 581.
Weight: Warren Mfg. Co. v. Boston & M. R., 419 (422).
Weight Density: American Newspaper Publishers Asso. v. Bangor & A. R.
Co., 729 (731–732).
Although the governing tariff provided that no demurrage charges would be
collected where carrier's error prevented proper tender or delivery, and
although carriers failed to insert in the waybills the notation "Allow Inspec-
tion" that appeared in the bills of lading, nevertheless carrier's error was
not the proximate cause for delay in delivery, and the resulting demurrage
charges were applicable, since complainant, although put on notice by
carrier's refusal to permit inspection on the ground that it was not provided
for in the billing, did not request inspection, as was its custom, until after
demurrage had accrued. Southern Flour & Grain Co. v. Nashville, C. &
St. L. Ry., 641.
A bill of lading signed or accepted by the shipper and showing on its face a
certain route may be taken as strong presumptive evidence that the shipper
designated the routing, and while this presumption may be rebutted, com-
plainant's evidence failed to show that the routing in the bill of lading
over an interstate route on grass seed from Roseau, Minn., to Winons,
Minn., was inserted by the carrier, but to the contrary such evidence
was controverted in every essential detail. Therefore, carriers could
not be charged with misrouting. Northern Field Seed Co. v. Great
Northern Ry. Co., 408.
Apparently, a rail carrier is not required to issue bills of lading requiring
services by other than common carriers subject to the act, except in certain
instances in connection with registered vessels under section 25 of the act,
although the carrier may elect to extend its service beyond its own rails.
Wharfage Charges at Atlantic and Gulf Ports, 663 (683–684).
BLANKET RATES. See GROUPS AND BLANKETS.
BRANCH AND SHORT-LINE POINTS.
On reconsideration, rates prescribed on refined oils, and 80 per cent thereof
on distillate, from points in southern California to Arizona and New Mexico
destinations, which were the same to main-line and branch-line points,
found unreasonable for the future as applied to destinations on the Clifton
branch of the Southern Pacific. Finding in former report, 156 I. C. C.
418, modified. Arizona Corp. Commission v. Atchison, T. & S. F. Ry.
Co., 632.
The commission fixed rates based on the distance scale specified, with the
use of a constructive mileage of 150 per cent of the actual mileage on the
branch line, for application to and from points on branch lines not usually
accorded main-line rates. Idaho v. Oregon S. L. R. Co., 501 (505).
BULKY ARTICLES. See LIGHT AND BULKY ARTICLES.
BURDEN OF PROOF. See PROOF AND Evidence (Burden OF PROOF).
CANADA. See ADJACENT FOREIGN COUNTRY.
The proposed cancellation of rates on fresh meats, packing-house products,
and other articles in peddler cars from Illinois and Indiana points to
destinations on branch lines of the Chesapeake & Ohio, diverging from the
main line at Catlettsburg, Ky., and Barboursville, W. Va., applicable over
the Southern to Louisville, Ky., and thence over the C. & O., found not
justified as they were published to meet rates prescribed in 104 I. C. C.
641, between the same points, over a longer route over which transporta-
tion conditions were not shown to have been more favorable. Fresh
Meats and Packing-House Products, 121.
The commission has consistently found that disputes between carriers over
the divisions of their joint through rates are no justification for increasing
rates. Therefore, the proposed cancellation of transit services on grain
products and feed at certain points on the Baltimore & Ohio (lines west),
in connection with lines involved and points specified, which would result
in higher combination rates, found not justified. Transit on Grain on
Baltimore & O. R. Co., 536.
Proposed cancellation of the application of the combination rule to rates on
livestock from certain points in South Dakota west of Mobridge, S. Dak.,
to interstate destinations east thereof, which would result in numerous
fourth-section departures, was found not justified. Rules for Combination
Rates on Livestock, 629.
An arbitrary of 70 cents per ton to cover the entire car-float or lighterage
service in New York Harbor was prescribed on shipments of roofing slag
from Reading and Swedeland, Pa., to Providence, Auburn, Esmond, and
Cranston, R. I., and Attleboro, Mass. Cartier & Sons Co. v. New York,
N. H. & H. R. Co., 649.
CARLOADS AND LESS THAN CARLOADS.
Where the applicable carload rate and minimum produced lower charges
than the less-than-carload rate, the carload rate was applicable under
rule 15 of the consolidated classification. Gaylord Co. v. Cleveland,
C., C. & St. L. Ry. Co., 47 (48).
The fact that certain commodities would not "top load" and that the
number of pounds loaded in a standard car was much less than on the
commodity involved might indicate that the carload rate on the
latter should be relatively lower but not that a difference should be
observed in the less-than-carload rating. Southern Traffic & Audit
Asso. v. Missouri-K.-T. R. Co., 361 (364).
Although complainant had theretofore made no c. 1. shipments, the
evidence showed that it could and would ship in c. 1. quantities if
given reasonably related c. 1. and 1. c. 1. ratings, and reasonable c. 1.
ratings were accordingly prescribed. General Alloys Co. v. Akron,
C. & Y. Ry. Co., 733 (736).
Commodities:
Castings, chromium-iron-nickel alloy, etc., and boxes: General Alloys Co.
v. Akron, C. & Y. Ry. Co., 733.
Implements, agricultural: Potato Implement Co. v. Ann Arbor R. Co.,
477 (478).
Coal, fine: Watab Paper Co. v. Northern Pac. Ry. Co., 37 (39).
Gum, Bakelite (synthetic): Bakelite Corp. v. Boston & Albany R., 581.
Limestone, in blocks, rough quarried, scabbled, and in slabs, and dressed
stone: O'Meara v. Baltimore & O. R. Co., 785 (788-789, 790, 792, 796).
Oil, linseed: Fredonia Linseed Oil Works v. Missouri Pac. R. Co., 151
(152).
Poultry, live: Pennington Produce Co. v. Texas & Pac. Ry. Co., 229
(231).
Ajax Paper Mills v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 157.
Pittston Paper Corp. v. Lehigh Valley R. Co., 264.
Rock, ground bituminous asphalt: Quinn Co. v. Atlanta, B. & A. Ry. Co.,
571 (572).
Slag, roofing: Cartier & Sons Co. v. New York, N. H. & H. R. Co., 649.
Tools, oil-well: Dunn Mfg. Co. v. Atchison, T. & S. F. Ry. Co., 798.
CLASS AND COMMODITY RATES.
The fact that class rates from various points in two different groups to
specified destinations are the same is no reason why the same com-
modity rates should prevail from these various origins, since com-
modity rates are affected by considerations different from those
governing the class-rate structure. New River Lumber Co. v. Chesa-
peake & O. Ry. Co., 329 (332-333).
With reasonable class rates in effect it did not appear necessary to
prescribe commodity rates to take care of a few carloads of shipments
per year. Idaho v. Oregon S. L. R. Co., 501 (508).
Barrels or drums, iron or steel: National Steel Barrel Co. v. Louisville
& N. R. Co., 75.
Board, wall, fiber: Upson Co. v. Ann Arbor R. Co., 586 (606).
Bottles, glass: Carroll-Graham Bottle Co. v. Chicago & N. W. Ry. Co.,
Cores, paper-winding, returned: American Newspaper Publishers Asso.
v. Bangor & A. R. Co., 729.
Cotton piece goods: Globe Superior Corp. v. Southern Ry. Co., 456.
Granite: Riverside Monument Works v. Erie R. Co., 81.
Grapes: Ciresi Fruit Co. v. Chicago & N. W. Ry. Co., 233.
Iron and steel articles: Seneca Wire Mfg. Co. v. New York, C. & St.
L. R. Co., 349.
Lead and lead articles, in mixed carloads: Fisher Supply Co. v. Ala-
bama & V. Ry. Co., 711 (713).
Perrine-Armstrong Co. v. Erie R. Co., 22.
Peabody Lumber Co. v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 56.
New River Lumber Co. v. Chesapeake & O. Ry. Co., 329 (332-333).
Blanchard Lumber Co. v. New York, N. H. & H. R. Co., 643.
Machinery, cotton-gin: Artesia Alfalfa Growers Asso. v. Atchison,
T. & S. F. Ry. Co., 50.
Mortar, high-temperature, bonding: Smith Agency. Central of
Georgia Ry. Co., 540.
CLASS AND COMMODITY RATES-Continued.
Commodities-Continued.
Oil, china-wood: Valentine & Co. v. Lehigh Valley R. Co., 781.
Oil, cottonseed, crude: National Cottonseed Products Corp. v. Chicago,
I. & L. Ry. Co., 449.
Oil, creosote: Brown & Sons Lumber Co. v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 393.
Pickles and tomatoes, canned: Canned Vegetables from Keokuk, 621.
Pipe, sewer, and wall coping: Cancellation of Commodity Rates on
Sewer Pipe, 514.
Bedford Pulp & Paper Co. v. Chesapeake & O. Ry. Co., 110.
Smith Agency v. Seaboard Air Line Ry. Co., 464.
Pulp wood: Ajax Paper Mills v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 357.
Salt, cake: Advance Bag & Paper Co. v. Central R. Co., of N. J., 317.
Shovel, gasoline-power: Babcock, Boomer & Babcock Co. v. Northern
Pac. Ry. Co., 469.
Tools, oil-well: Dunn Mfg. Co. v. Atchison, T. & S. F. Ry. Co., 798.
Wire nails, fencing, steel fence posts, and fasteners: Kokomo Steel &
Wire Co. v. Michigan Central R. Co., 368.
Benton and Camden, Ark: Owosso Mfg. Co. v. Asherton & Gulf
Ry. Co., 219 (223–224).
Idaho points: Idaho v. Oregon S. L. R. Co., 501.
South and Southwest: Creomulsion Co. v. Southern Ry. Co., 95.
CLASSIFICATION.
Other classification considerations being substantially equal, a mere
difference in the volume of movement does not warrant a difference
in the classification treatment. Potato Implement Co. v. Ann
Arbor R. Co., 477 (478).
The fact that burnt-out articles are broken up and remelted is not
alone a sufficient justification for a lower rating on such articles than
on new articles, although, of course, reasonable ratings on the burnt-
out articles should not exceed those on the new. General Alloys
Co. v. Akron, C. & Y. Ry. Co., 733 (736).
Bathtubs: Fisher Supply Co. v. Alabama & V. Ry. Co., 711.
Castings and boxes or pots, chromium-iron-nickel: General Alloys Co.
v. Akron, C. & Y. Ry. Co., 733.
Compound, bleaching, flour: Novadell Process Corp. v. Belt Ry. Co.
of Chicago, 459.
Design, floral: May Co. v. Reading Co., 211 (212).
Implements, agricultural: Potato Implement Co. v. Ann Arbor R. Co.,
477 (478).
Machinery, cotton-gin: Artesia Alfalfa Growers Asso. v. Atchison,
T. & S. F. Ry. Co., 50 (51).
Oil, linseed: Fredonia Linseed Oil Works v. Missouri Pac. R. Co.,
151 (152).
Paper, newsprint, etc.: Equitable Paper Bag Co. v. New York, N. H. &
H. R. Co., 115 (117).
Planters, corn and potato: Potato Implement Co. v. Ann Arbor R.
Co., 477.
CLASSIFICATION EXCEPTIONS.
Following 115 I. C. C. 439, and other cases, the sixth-class rate from Jack-
sonville to Avon Park, Fla., being one factor of a combination rate from
West Allis, Wis., on one traveling crane and parts listed under the general
heading "cranes or derricks" in southern classification, was found inappli-
cable and the class N rating provided in the exceptions thereto applicable
to "Machinery and machines rated sixth class under caption, 'Machinery
and Machines' in southern classification," was found applicable.
tion awarded. Milwaukee Elec. Crane & Mfg. Corp. v. Atlantic Coast
Line R. Co., 417.
Certain exceptions to the governing classification, providing that class rates
would not apply on a certain commodity, governed only those tariffs which
referred to them, and did not prohibit the application of class rates named
in other tariffs. Buckeye Cotton Oil Co. v. Alton & Southern R. Co.,
657 (659).
CLASSIFICATION TERRITORIES.
The fact that commodity rates on certain commodities for application within
and to southern territory had been prescribed or approved to approxi-
mately the same level of rates as applied on those commodities in central
territory and that rates on certain other articles in southern territory were
on a lower percentage basis of first-class rates than were the rates on the
same articles in the Southwest did not prove that all commodity rates in
the South should be on a lower percentage basis of first-class rates than in
the Southwest or that traffic conditions in the South were more nearly
comparable with those in central territory than with those in the South-
west, especially in view of former pronouncements that a lower level of
rates was warranted in central than in southern territory. Creomulsion
Co. v. Southern Ry. Co. 95 (96).
Evidence failed to indicate that a higher basis of 1. c. 1. rates should apply
on canned vegetables from southern to official territory than applied from
"southern to western territory. Sumter Packing Co. v. Atlantic Coast
Line R. Co., 137 (143).
In percentage of first-class, rule 26 in official classification is approximately
the equivalent of fourth class in southern and western classifications.
Id. (143).
Less-than-carload rates on fruits and vegetables, in metal cans in boxes or
barrels, from southern territory points to official and western territory
destinations, found not unreasonable; but in southern territory, prior to
the date rates therein were reduced to fourth class, the less-than-carlcad
rates on canned vegetables were unreasonable as compared with fourth-
class less-than-carload rates from southern to western territory. Repara-
tion awarded. Id. (145).
Proposed advance of commodity rates to sixth-class rates on vitrified-elay
sewer pipe and on wall coping from and to points in the central territory,
and from Ohio points to central points in the Buffalo-Pittsburgh territory
found not justified, considering the prevalence of lower rates in other
territories. Cancellation of Commodity Rates on Sewer Pipe, 514.
Generally speaking, the rates from Mountain-Pacific territory to the South-
west are higher, distances considered, than the rates applicable within the
latter territory. Dunn Mfg. Co. v. Atchison, T. & S. F. Ry. Co., 79%.
|