Page images
PDF
EPUB

INTERSTATE COMMERCE REPORTS.

R. Co. 4 R. & Can. Traf. Cas. 291; Greenock
v. S. E. R. Co. 2 Nev. & Mac. 319; Concord &
P. R. R. Co. v. Forsaith, 59 N. H. 122.

The length and character of the haul, the
cost of service, the volume of business, the
conditions of competition, the storage capacity
and the geographical situation of the different
terminal points are all elements of importance
bearing upon the relative reasonableness of the
respective charges for transportation.

Boston Chamber of Commerce v. Lake Shore & M. S. R. Co. 1 Inters. Com. Rep. 754.

Under the Railway Clauses Consolidation Act of 1845, mere inequality in the rate of charge, when unequal distances are traversed, does not constitute a preference.

Denaby Main Colliery Co. v. Manchester S. & L. R. Co. L. R. 11 App. Cas. 97.

A difference in the cost of service will justify a carrier in making a reasonable difference in its rates.

Chicago & A. R. Co. v. People, 67 Ill. 11-24; Denaby Main Colliery Co. v. Manchester, S. & L. R. Co. 26 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 293; Nicholson v. Great Western R. Co. 5 C. B. N. S. 366; Ransome v. Eastern Counties R. Co. 2 Nev. & Mac. 202; Girardot v. R. Co. 4 R. & Can. Traf. Cas. 291; Denaby Main Colliery Co. v. Manchester, S. & L. R. Co. L. R. 11 App. Cas. 101, 102; Ransome v. Eastern Counties R. Co. 1 Nev. & Mac. 63; S. C. 1 C. B. N. S. 437; 26 L. J. C. P. 91; Foreman v. Great Western R. Co. 2 Nev. & Mac. 202; Nitshill etc. Coal Co. v. Caledonian R. Co. 2 Nev. & Mac. 39; Bellsdyke Coal Co. v. North British R. Co. 2 Nev. & Mac. 105; Bell v. London etc. R. Co. 2 Nev. & Mac. 185; Holland etc. R. Co. v. Festiniog R. Co. 2 Nev. & Mac. 287; Lotspeich v. Cent. R. & Bkg. Co. 73 Ala. 306; S. C. 18 Am. & Eng. R. R. Cas. 490; Burton Stock Car Co. v. Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co. 1 Inters. Com. Rep. 329; Providence Coal Co. v. Providence & W. R. Co. 1 Inters. Com. Rep. 363.

A railway company is justified in carrying goods for one person at a less rate than that at which it carries goods for another, only where there are circumstances which make the cost of carrying the former less than the cost of carrying the latter.

loading.
Or difference in expense of loading and un-

Chicago & A. R. Co. v. People, 67 Ill. 26. pers own private side tracks and return cars Different rates may be charged where shipmore promptly.

& L. R. Co. L. R. 11 App. Cas. 102. Denaby Main Colliery Co. v. Manchester, S.

Less rates may be charged for furnishing vals. freight in fully loaded trains at regular inter

Nicholson v. Great Western R. Co. 5 C. B.

N. S. 366.

transportation is over steep grades.
A difference in charge is justified where the

2 Nev. & Mac. 105; Nitshill Coal Co. v. Cale-
Bellsdyke Coal Co. v. North British R. Co.
donian R. Co. 2 Nev. & Mac. 39.

same description" refer not to the contents of
"Goods of like description" and "goods of
that is, like or different for the purpose of car-
the parcels, but to the parcels themselves,
riage.

& Irish App. H. L. 226; Nitshill etc. Coal
Great Western L. Co. v. Sutton, L. R. 4 Eng.
Co. v. Caledonian R. Co. 2 Nev. & Mac. 39;
Merry v. Glasgow R. Co. 4 R. & Can. Traf.
Cas. 383.

reasonable terms, as well as that which is more
Less desirable traffic must be accepted upon
desirable.

Inters. Com. Rep. 787.
Riddle v. New York, L. E. & W. R. Co. 1

for the complainants who were brewers at B. The N. W. Railway Company carried goods by their railway; they charged the complainants, and the public generally, 1s per ton for the carriage of goods to and from their B. station, and 9d per ton for terminal services there. T. & Co. and C. & Co., who were also brewers at B., had breweries connected with the M. Railway Company's station at that the goods which they sent or received by the place by continuous railway communication; M. line were loaded and unloaded on their own premises by their servants, and they were consequently not charged by the M. Railway Company any rate for cartage or terminal servGarton v. Bristol & E. R. Co. 6 C. B. N. S. der to compete with the M. Railway Company ices. The N. W. Railway Company, in or639; S. C. 28 L. J. C. P. 306; 1 Nev. & Mac. for the carriage of the goods of T. & Co. and 218; Oxlade v. North Eastern R. Co. 1 C. B. C. & Co., exempted them from the above menN. S. 454; S. C. 26 L. J. C. P. 129; 1 Nev. tioned rates of 1s 9d respectively, carting and & Mac. 72; Nittshill etc. Coal Co. v. Caledo-loading their goods gratuitously. There benian R. Co. 2 Nev. & Mac. 39. The difference in rates must bear some pro-cost to the company by reason of the quantity ing nothing to show that there was a saving of portion to the difference of the cost to carriers. of goods carried for T. & Co. and C. & Co., to Harris v. Cockermouth etc. R. Co. 1 Nev. & compensate for the loss of 1s, 9d per ton, and Mac. 97-102; 3 C. B. N. S. 693; Garton v. T. & Co. and C. & Co. being the only firms Bristol etc. R. Co. 1 Nev. & Mac. 227; 6 C. B. to whom the reduced rates were applicable, N. S. 639-655; Nicholson v. G. W. R. Co. held, that there was not sufficient ground for 1 Nev. & Mac. 185; Denaby Main Colliery Co. the arrangements made in their favor, and that v. Manchester, S. & L. R. Co. L. R. 11 App. an injunction should issue against the N. W. Cas. 122; Baxendale v. R. Co. 1 Nev. & Mac. Railway Company, under the third section of 202; Ransome v. Eastern Counties R. Co. 1 the Railway & Canal Traffic Act, 1854; in orNev. & Mac. 69. railway company in favor of one or more inder to justify a difference being made by a tomers, there must be an adequate consideradividual members of its general class of custo it of the services rendered to such individtion to the railway company lessening the cost ual members of the general class; and it is not sufficient that the railway company merely de

A difference in bulk will justify difference in

rates.

Lotspeich v. Cent. R. & Bkg. Co. 73 Ala. 306. Or when return loads could not be had. Chicago & A. R. Co. v. People, 67 Ill. 24; Girardot v. Midland R. Co. 4 R. & Can. Traf. Cas. 291.

Nicholson v. Great Western R. Co. 5 C. B. N. S. 366; S. C. 28 L. J. C. P. 89; 1 Nev. & Mac. 121.

sires to attract the traffic from another line to | quantities and full train loads at regular periitself, especially where the favor thus shown ods. to a few is prejudicial to many others in the same trade as the favored persons; the railway company having acted bona fide in the matter, and with no intention of prejudicing the complainants as rivals in trade with others, the injunction was granted without costs.

Thompson v. London etc. R. Co. 2 Nev. & Mac. 115.

Where plaintiff's business was to collect parcels in London and forward them, each parcel being labeled with plaintiff's name, "Pickford & Co." and also with the name of the person to whom it was ultimately to be It is an unlawful preference to give reduced delivered, but all the parcels were delivered in rates in consideration of an agreement to em- one consignment, held, defendant company ploy other lines of the company for the car- had no right to charge for each parcel separiage of other traffic or to employ the com-rately according to its individual weight. pany in other distinct business, the carriage of goods to other points not affecting the cost of carriage between the particular points.

Baxendale v. Great Western R. Co. 5 C. B. N. S. 309; 1 Nev. & Mac. 191; 28 L. J. C. P. 69; Scofield . Lake Shore & M. S. R. Co. 1 West. Rep. 812, 43 Ohio St. 571; Twellis v. Pa. R. R. Co. 3 Am. L. Reg. N. S. 728; Bellsdyke Coal Co. v. North British R. Co. 2 Nev. & Mac. 105.

Or to charge a higher wharfage rate on goods to be conveyed by another railway.

Toomer v. London R. Co. 3 Nev. & Mac. 79. A reduced rate in consideration of a contract to carry all of certain goods and to prevent their being carried by water or other means is an undue preference.

Garton v. Bristol & E. R. Co. 1 Nev. & Mac. 218; S. C. 28 L. J. C. P. 306.

A difference in rates on an agreement for a period of thirty years and another agreement for fourteen years for a similar service is an undue preference.

Holland v. Festiniog R. Co. 2 Nev. & Mac.

278.

That the shipper contracts to furnish all his freight to the carrier will not authorize a lower rate to him.

Scofield v. Lake Shore & M. S. R. Co. 1 West. Rep. 812, 43 Ohio St. 571; Baxendale v. Great Western R. Co. 5 C. B. N. S. 309; Diphwys Casson Slate Co. v. Festiniog R. Co. 2 Nev. & Mac. 73; S. C. 32 L. T. N. S. 271; Bellsdyke Coal Co. v. N. B. R. Co. 2 Nev. & Mac. 105.

An agreement with certain quarry owners to carry slate for a fixed number of years at a less rate than charged for the same service to complainant quarry owners, who refused to bind themselves by such an agreement, held an undue preference.

Diphwys Casson Slate Co. v. Festiniog R. 2 Nev. & Mac. 73. See also Scofield v. Lake Co. Shore & M. S. R. Co. 1 West. Rep. 812, 43 Ohio St. 571; Baxendale v. Great Western R. Co. 5 C. B. N. S. 309; Menacho v. Ward, 27 Fed. Rep. 529.

Where the railway company fixed rates for packages containing a certain number of pounds, held, that baskets of fish, of a size required by the business, should be rated by the pound and not by the size of packages as contained in the published rates of the railway company.

Woodger v. Great Western R. Co. 2 Nev. & Mac. 102; S. C. L. R. 2 C. P. 318.

But a railway company may carry at a lower rate in consideration of a guaranty of large

Baxendale v. South Western R. Čo. 35 L. J. Exch. 108.

When oil is transported in tanks permanently fixed to car bodies, the tank is to be considered as a part of the car; and for oil transported therein the charge for transportation should be the same by the 100 pounds that the carrier charges for transportation between the same points, of barrels filled with like oil and taken in car load lots. The carrier is guilty of unjust discrimination if the shipper in barrels is charged a higher rate. Under this rule the carrier will be at liberty, and will be expected, to make to the owner of tank cars a reasonable allowance for their use. Rice v. Louisville & N. R. Co. 1 Inters. Com. Rep. 722.

Neither the fact that the shipper in the one case supplies the rolling stock, nor the alleged fact, that for the tanks there is a greater probability of return loads, nor the further alleged fact, that with barrel shipments there are greater risks to the carrier's property and that which it carries, can justify imposing upon the barrel shipments the greater burden. Id.

When two methods for the transportation of an article of merchandise are nominally offered by the carrier, for only one of which it offers rolling stock, and for the other of which the shipper must supply his own rolling stock at considerable expense, it cannot be said that the resort to the latter by the shipper is so far a matter of choice that he, has no concern with the charges for transportation in the other mode. The man of small means being compelled to make his choice, by reason of the carrier's failure to supply rolling stock for the other mode, has a right to insist that the charges for transportation in the two modes shall be relatively just and equal. Id.

Defendant railway company published a tariff containing the following: "For the purpose of facilitating quick dispatch of the coal cars of this company, a discount of 10 per cent will be made from the following rates to any person, firm or company, who shall receive consignments of coal, in any one year, amounting to 30,000 tons or upwards, at any one station on the line of this road. Quick dispatch to be construed as immediate unloading of coal on its arrival at destination." Defendant claimed that this discount was offered to secure, and was conditioned upon, quick dispatch in unloading its coal cars, and that it was a reasonable regulation for the proper conduct of its business. Held:

(a) That, by the wording of the offer, "quick dispatch" was not made a condition of the of

fer; and, therefore, it cannot be supported on that ground;

(b) That even if "quick dispatch" were made a condition of the discount, such offer would have neither justice nor reason to support it, as its limitation to consignees receiving a specified number of tons would be an unjust discrimination;

(c) That the offer of discount cannot be supported on the consideration of quantity, on the analogy of the distinction usually made in ordinary business transactions, between wholesale and retail dealers.

Providence Coal Co. v. Providence & W. R. Co. 1 Inters. Com. Rep. 363.

The expense of hauling Burton live stock cars in one direction unloaded (for the reason that by their construction they are not suited to carrying general freight) as compared with the greater ability to load back the ordinary railroad cattle cars, and the fact that a large percentage of the ordinary cattle cars are so back loaded upon the long hauls of western roads, are considerations which justify a difference in charge against shippers who prefer to hire the improved stock cars.

Burton Stock Car Co. v. Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co. 1 Inters. Com. Rep. 329.

Doubted (but not decided) whether the extrà charges made to shippers of live stock in special cars (including the Burton cars) over thirty feet in length, according to the revised classification of the Western Railroad Classification Committee, put in force April 7, 1887, are not unreasonable. Id.

The permitting by common carriers, of the practice of underbilling the weight of freight or giving it a false classification, whereby less compensation is paid by one person than by another for "a like and contemporaneous service," is within the inhibition of the Act to Regulate Commerce.

Ře Underbilling, 1 Inters. Com. Rep. 813.

Competition.

The fact that one shipper can go by another route and will probably do so if charged as much as the charge made to the complaining party, is not a circumstance justifying an unequal charge; nor will the fact that those charged a less rate are seeking to develop a new trade.

*

London & N. W. R. Co. v. Evershed, L. R. 3 App. Cas. 1029; Denaby Main Colliery Co. v. Manchester, S. & L. R. Co. L. R. 11 App. Cas. 97.

The lowering of rates for the purpose of developing business is an undue preference.

Oxlade v. North Eastern R. Co. 1 C. B. N. S. 454; S. C. 26 L. J. C. P. 129; 1 Nev. & Mac. 72.

Or making a lower rate in consequence of a threat from the owner of a colliery to construct another railway, by which traffic would be diverted.

Harris v. Cockermouth & W. R. Co. 3 C. B. N. S. 693; S. C. 27 L. J. C. P. 162; 1 Nev. & Mac. 97; Diphwys Casson Slate Co.v. Festiniog R. Co. 2 Nev. & Mac. 73.

An exceptional rebate and gratuitous cartage of goods of one customer not allowed to others, for the purpose of competing with another line, held to be undue preference.

[ocr errors]

London & M. W. R. Co. v. Evershed, L. R. 3 App. Cas. 1029.

A company made an agreement with A to carry for him coals for three years, from Petersborough to various places on its line of railway, at certain rates. B, a coal merchant at Ipswich, sent coals (which had been brought to that port by sea) to various places on the same lines of railway, and the company charged him a much larger sum in proportion to the distance over which his coals were carried than the company charged to A-the professed object of the difference being to enable | A (whose coal came to Petersborough by rai! way) to compete in the coal trade of the district with B, who had the advantage of having had his coals brought to Ipswich by sea. Held, that this was giving an undue preference to A, and the company was required to carry coals for B on equal terms with A, due regard being had to any circumstance rendering the cost of carrying for one less than for the other.

Ransome v. Eastern Counties R. Co. 1 C. B. N. S. 437; S. C. 3 Jur. N. S. 217; 26 L. R. C. P. 91; 1 Nev. & Mac. 63.

That "Railroads have water competition and are compelled to meet it," without more, is not sufficient to justify a lesser charge for the greater distance. Dissimilar "circumstances and conditions" are made out by the existence of actual competition which is the controlling force.

Harwell v. Columbus & W. R. Co. 1 Inters. Com. Rep. 631; Ex parte Koehler, 23 Fed. Rep. 529.

In Boston Chamber of Commerce v. Lake Shore & M. S. R. Co. 1 Inters. Com. Rep. 754, the rule is stated to be: the length and character of the haul, the cost of service, the volume of business, the conditions of competition, the storage capacity and the geographical situation of the different terminal points, are all elements of importance bearing upon the relative reasonableness of the respective charges for transportation.

The subject of competition is further considered under the title "Long and Short Haul and Operation and Suspension of Fourth Section of the Interstate Commerce Act."

Furnishing Cars.

A railway company is bound to furnish sufficient locomotive power, and to desist from unduly detaining empty or unloaded wagons; Watkinson etc. Copper Co. v. Wrexham etc. R. Co. 3 Nev. & Mac. 446; and to furnish sufficient cars for its traffic.

Watkinson etc. Copper Co. v. Wrexham etc. R. Co. 3 Nev. & Mac. 164; Tharsis etc. v. London etc. R. Co. 3 Nev. & Mac. 455; Caterham R. Co. v. London, B. & S. C. R. Co. 1 C. B. N. S. 410; S. C. 26 L. J. C. P. 161; 1 Nev. & Mac. 32; Barrett v. Gt. North. R. Co. 1 Nev. & Mac. 38; Toomer v. London etc. R. Co. 3 Nev. & Mac. 79; Dublin etc. R. Co. v. Midland R. Co. 3 Nev. & Mac. 379; Riddle v. N. Y. etc. R. Co. 1 Inters. Com. Rep. 787.

The character and condition of goods and the orderly prosecution of business will determine the order of shipment and the furnishingof facilities for transportation.

Galena &C. U. R. Co. v. Rae, 18 Ill. 488;

Great Western R. Co. v. Burns, 60 Ill. 284; | bound to stop its trains and exchange traffic at
Peet v. Chicago & N. W. R. Co. 20 Wis. 594. the junction of another road.
See note, 16 Am. L. Rev. 832.

It is properly the business of a carrier by railroad to supply the rolling stock for the freight it offers or proposes to carry; and if the diversities and peculiarities of traffic are such that this is not always practicable, and consignors are allowed to supply it for them. selves, the carrier must not allow its own deficiencies in this particular to be made the means of putting at an unreasonable advantage those who make use in the same traffic of the facilities it supplies.

Rice v. Louisville & N. R. Co. 1 Inters. Com. Rep. 722.

When for a special traffic-e. g., the transportation of petroleum oils-a carrier provides rolling stock for one method, but does not provide it for another for which it publishes rates, but the shippers are expected to provide the same, the terms on which such rolling stock is to be provided should be uniform and should | be published with the rate sheets, and cannot lawfully be left to be the subject of bargain and of different terms in the case of different shippers. Id.

A railroad is not justified in refusing to furnish cars for the transportation of coal, by the fact that it could at that time make more money by using its coal cars upon other portions of its line.

Riddle v. N. Y. etc. R. Co. 1 Inters. Com. Rep. 787.

During the summer and fall of 1887, owing to high rates on lake vessels, there was an accumulation of coal and other freights along the line of defendant company. Held, that the proof did not sustain the charge that the company gave a preference in furnishing cars for the transportation of coke over the coa! trade, or gave a preference to shippers in not requiring them to load or unload cars.

Riddle o. Pittsburgh & L. E. R. Co. 1 Inters. Com. Rep. 688.

In the absence of a custom or rule of business placing the duty upon the carrier to notify a shipper of the arrival of cars for his use, it is the duty of the shipper to make inquiry of the proper agent of the railroad company; but if the carrier undertakes to notify, it must per form its duty in this respect.

Riddle v. Balt. & O. R. Co. 1 Inters. Com. Rep. 778.

Atchison, T. & S. F. R. Co. v. Denver & N. O. R. Co. 110 U. S. 667 (28 L. ed. 291); and its liability terminates with its delivery to the connecting carrier.

Myrick v. Mich. Cent. R. Co. 107 U. S. 102 (27 L. ed. 325).

The use of cars upon other lines is a service incidental to the receiving, forwarding and delivering of traffic, and is within the provisions of the English Act.

Diphwys Casson Slate Co. v. Festiniog R. Co. 2 Nev. & Mac. 73; S. C. 32 L. T. (N. S.) 271. Under the English Act it must appear that public convenience requires continuous carriage.

Barret v. Great Northern R. Co. 1 C. B. N. S. 423; S. C. 26 L. J. C. P. 83; 1 Nev. & Mac. 28; Caterham R. Co. v. London, B. & S. C. R. Co. 1 C. B. N. S. 410; S. C. 26 L. J. C. P. 161; 1 Nev. & Mac. 32; Parkinson v. Great Western R. Co. 40 L. J. C. P. 222; S. C. 24 L. T. N. S. 830; 1 Nev. & Mac. 280; Fishbourne v. Gt. S. & W. R. Co. 2 Nev. & Mac. 224; Wannan v. Scottish Cent. R. Co. 2 Sess. Cas. 1373; 1 Nev. & Mac. 237; Pickford v. Caledonian R. Co. 1 Nev. & Mac. 252; Local Board etc. v. London etc. R. Co. & S. E. R. Co. 2 Nev. & Mac. 214; Toomer v. London etc. R. Co. 3 Nev. & Mac. 79; Victoria etc. Co. v. Neath etc. R. Co. 3 Nev. & Mac. 37; James etc. v. Taff. Vale etc. R. Co. 3 Nev. & Mac. 540; Swindon etc. R. Co. v. Great Western R. Co. 4 Nev. & Mac. 349.

Where cars are dissimilar in character a railway company may refuse to forward, upon reasonable requirements.

Caledonian R. Co. v. North British R. Co. 3 Nev. & Mac. 56.

The milage rate of three fourths of a cent per mile run, which is customary, among railroads, for freight cars of other railroad companies used upon the paying company's line, and which payment is, by the interchange of cars, practically equalized among the different roads, is not to be taken as the measure of payment for the use of cars belonging to persons other than railroad companies.

Burton Stock Car Co. v. Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co. 1 Inters. Com. Rep. 329.

The Burton Stock Car Company, which furnishes special improved live stock cars owned by it, to shippers over railroads, does not The proceedings and decisions of the Inter- exchange with or use cars belonging to others, state Commerce Commission relating to refusal and is in no sense a "connecting line," entitled to furnish cars are referred to in the index to to equal facilities for interchange of traffic, this volume, under title "Charges and Dis-under paragraph 2 of section 3 of the Act to crimination."

Connecting Lines; Express Companies.

At common law a railway company is bound to transport or haul upon its road the cars of any other railway company.

Vt. & M. R. Co. v. Fitchburg R. Co. 14 Allen, 462; Mackin v. Boston & A. R. Co. 135 Mass. 201.

A railroad company is bound to supply suitable vehicles of transportation and to offer their use to everybody impartially.

Ogdensburg & L. C. R. Co. r. Pratt, 89 U. S. 22 Wall. 123-133 (22 L. ed. 827-831).

In absence of a statute, a railroad is not

Regulate Commerce. Id.

The Burton Stock Car Company is not entitled to claim that it is unjustly discriminated against, by a refusal on the part of railroad companies to pay it the same rate of milage which carriers adopt as the basis in adjusting their car service accounts with each other. Id.

A railway company cannot make a distinction in its rates dependent upon whether the traffic is booked no further than it goes by railway or is booked to a destination beyond the limits subject to the traffic statute.

Ayr Harbour Trustees v. Glasgow R. Co. 4 R. & Ca the rail

Wher

fer; and, therefore, it cannot be supported on that ground;

(b) That even if "quick dispatch" were made a condition of the discount, such offer would have neither justice nor reason to support it, as its limitation to consignees receiving a specified number of tons would be an unjust discrimination;

(c) That the offer of discount cannot be supported on the consideration of quantity, on the analogy of the distinction usually made in ordinary business transactions, between wholesale and retail dealers.

Providence Coal Co. v. Providence & W. R. Co. 1 Inters. Com. Rep. 363.

The expense of hauling Burton live stock cars in one direction unloaded (for the reason that by their construction they are not suited to carrying general freight) as compared with the greater ability to load back the ordinary railroad cattle cars, and the fact that a large percentage of the ordinary cattle cars are so back loaded upon the long hauls of western roads, are considerations which justify a difference in charge against shippers who prefer to hire the improved stock cars.

Burton Stock Car Co. v. Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co. 1 Inters. Com. Rep. 329.

Doubted (but not decided) whether the extra charges made to shippers of live stock in special cars (including the Burton cars) over thirty feet in length, according to the revised classification of the Western Railroad Classification Committee, put in force April 7, 1887, are not unreasonable. Id.

The permitting by common carriers, of the practice of underbilling the weight of freight or giving it a false classification, whereby less compensation is paid by one person than by another for "a like and contemporaneous service," is within the inhibition of the Act to Regulate Commerce.

Re Underbilling, 1 Inters. Com. Rep. 813.

Competition.

The fact that one shipper can go by another route and will probably do so if charged as much as the charge made to the complaining party, is not a circumstance justifying an unequal charge; nor will the fact that those charged a less rate are seeking to develop a new trade.

London & N. W. R. Co. v. Evershed, L. R. 3 App. Cas. 1029; Denaby Main Colliery Co. v. Manchester, S. & L. R. Co. L. R. 11 App. Cas. 97.

The lowering of rates for the purpose of developing business is an undue preference.

Oxlade v. North Eastern R. Co. 1 C. B. N. S. 454; S. C. 26 L. J. C. P. 129; 1 Nev. & Mac. 72.

Or making a lower rate in consequence of a threat from the owner of a colliery to construct another railway, by which traffic would be diverted.

Harris v. Cockermouth & W. R. Co. 3 C. B. N. S. 693; S. C. 27 L. J. C. P. 162; 1 Nev. & Mac. 97; Diphwys Casson Slate Co.v. Festiniog R. Co. 2 Nev. & Mac. 73.

An exceptional rebate and gratuitous cartage of goods of one customer not allowed to others, for the purpose of competing with another line, held to be undue preference.

London & M. W. R. Co. v. Evershed, L. R. 3 App. Cas. 1029.

A company made an agreement with A_to carry for him coals for three years, from Petersborough to various places on its line of railway, at certain rates. B, a coal merchant at Ipswich, sent coals (which had been brought to that port by sea) to various places on the same lines of railway, and the company charged him a much larger sum in proportion to the distance over which his coals were carried than the company charged to A-the professed object of the difference being to enable A (whose coal came to Petersborough by rai! way) to compete in the coal trade of the district with B, who had the advantage of having had his coals brought to Ipswich by sea. Held, that this was giving an undue preference to A, and the company was required to carry coals for B on equal terms with A, due regard being had to any circumstance rendering the cost of carrying for one less than for the other.

Ransome v. Eastern Counties R. Co. 1 C. B. N. S. 437; S. C. 3 Jur. N. S. 217; 26 L. R. C. P. 91; 1 Nev. & Mac. 63.

That "Railroads have water competition and are compelled to meet it," without more, is not sufficient to justify a lesser charge for the greater distance. Dissimilar "circumstances and conditions" are made out by the existence of actual competition which is the controlling force.

Harwell v. Columbus & W. R. Co. 1 Inters. Com. Rep. 631; Ex parte Koehler, 23 Fed. Rep. 529.

In Boston Chamber of Commerce v. Lake Shore & M. S. R. Co. 1 Inters. Com. Rep. 754, the rule is stated to be: the length and char acter of the haul, the cost of service, the volume of business, the conditions of competition, the storage capacity and the geographical situation of the different terminal points, are all elements of importance bearing upon the relative reasonableness of the respective charges for transportation.

The subject of competition is further considered under the title "Long and Short Haul and Operation and Suspension of Fourth Section of the Interstate Commerce Act."

Furnishing Cars.

A railway company is bound to furnish sufficient locomotive power, and to desist from unduly detaining empty or unloaded wagons; Watkinson etc. Copper Co. v. Wrexham etc. R. Co. 3 Nev. & Mac. 446; and to furnish sufficient cars for its traffic.

Watkinson etc. Copper Co. v. Wrexham etc. R. Co. 3 Nev. & Mac. 164; Tharsis etc. v. London etc. R. Co. 3 Nev. & Mac. 455; Caterham R. Co. v. London, B. & S. C. R. Co. 1 C. B. N. S. 410; S. C. 26 L. J. C. P. 161; 1 Nev. & Mac. 32; Barrett v. Gt. North. R. Co. 1 Nev. & Mac. 38; Toomer v. London etc. R. Co. 3 Nev. & Mac. 79; Dublin etc. R. Co. v. Midland R. Co. 3 Nev. & Mac. 379; Riddle v. N. Y. etc. R. Co. 1 Inters. Com. Rep. 787.

The character and condition of goods and the orderly prosecution of business will determine the order of shipment and the furnishing of facilities for transportation.

Galena &C. U. R. Co. v. Rae, 18 Ill. 488;

« PreviousContinue »