Page images

part of a common carrier in contravention of does not report evidence which is only cumuthe provisions of the Act.

lative, or which is immaterial or irrelevant, or Re Petition of R. Conductors, 1 Inters. Com. mere details of evidence already embraced in Rep. 18; Jurisdiction of the Commission, 1 substantial facts stated, upon which the findInters. Com. Rep. 73.

ings and conclusions of the Commission are Upon petitions by railroad companies pray- made. ing the Commission to "authorize the trunk Riddle v. Pittsburgh & L. E. R. Co. 1 Inters. lines to bill export freight to Boston at New Com. Rep. 773. York rates” etc., held, that as any legal ground Where the pleadings present issues of fact for affirmative action on the part of the Com- which cannot be disposed of by a decision mission was precluded by the fact that the par- which shall reach the merits without some ties bringing the practice to the attention of evidence, and no evidence is presented, the the Commission did so with explanations of its case must be dismissed. propriety and insisting upon its lawfulness, Leonard v. Union P R. Co. 1 Inters. Com. no order should be made on the petitions, but Rep. 627. leave should be given to withdraw them.

The Commission will not make an award Re Export Trade of Boston, 1 Inters. Com. of damages where the defendant is entitled to Rep. 25.

have the amount assessed by a jury. The report and findings of the Commission Riddle o, New York, L. E. & W. R. Co. 1 upon the evidence relate only to the ascertain - Inters. Com. Rep. 787; Heck o. E. Tenn. V. & ment and presentation of all the material facts G. R. Co. 1 Inters. Com. Rep. 775; Councill v. necessary to fairly and justly present the mer- Western & A. R. Co. 1 Inters. Com. Rep. 638; its of the controversy; and the Commission Heard v. Ga. R. Co. 1 Inters. Com. 719.


[merged small][ocr errors]

ACT TO REGULATE COMMERCE. as to free baggage until violation of Act is (INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT.)

charged. Re Order of Railway Conductors, 18, 1. Mere desire for construction of Act 62 315, 371; Traders & Travelers Union v. is not sufficient to support proceeding charging

Phila. & Reading R. Co. Id. violation of section 4. Boston & A. R. R. Co. 2. The Commission has no jurisdiction in a P. Boston & L. R. R. Co. 571.

case presented involving agreement between 2. The Commission can not construe the Traders & Travelers Union and certain carAct before violation thereof. Re Theatrical riers, for allowance of extra free baggage to Rates, 18; Re Order of Railway Conductors, 18. passengers presenting “baggage indemnity cer

tificate" issued by such Union, under ar3. Explanation of design of Act as bear

rangement made prior to time when Act

Address by Senator went into effect.
ing upon its construction,

Cullom, 300.

4. While the Act authorizes the Commission BICYCLERS.
to permit exceptions, it does not authorize it

Communication that bridge company to require exceptions. Thatcher v. Fitch- discriminates against bicyclers. Re Kenburg R. R. Co. 356.

ton Wheel Club of Covington, 23. BRIEFS AND NOTES.

BILL OF LADING. See COMMERCE, 52. Rules of construction. Note, 872.

Where a bill of lading specifies the rate per ADJOURNMENT. See CONTINUANCE AND but does not state their weight, which was

100 pounds to be paid for goods carried ADJOURNMENT.

readily ascertainable, the sum to be paid is AFFIDAVITS.

sufficiently specified to accomplish the obMay be taken before any officer author-ject of the Act. Little Rock & F. S. R. Co. v. ized to administer oath. Rule 12, Appendix

Hanniford (Sup. Ct. Ark.) 580.
I, 842.

AGENTS AND BROKERS. See Com- 1. Power to regulate commerce between

MERCE, II, b; COMMERCIAL TRAVELERS. States extends to erection of piers, bridges 1. Companies may forbid their agents to re- and all other instrumentalities of commerce ceive commissions for sale of tickets which, in the judgment of Congress, may be over other company's roads. Chicago etc. necessary or expedient. Stockton v. Baltimore R. R. Co. v. Pennsylvania Co. 357.

etc. R. R. Co. (U. S. C. Ct. N. J.) 411. 2. The practice of paying commissions for

2. Act of Congress of June 16, 1886, authorsuch sales is not proper. Id.

izing construction of bridge across Staten 3. A complaint by ticket broker, hav. Island Sound, known as Arthur Kill, is ing no apparent interest in the transaction, will

valid under power of Congress to regulate in. not be entertained. Ottinger v. Southern Pac. etc. R. R. Co. (U. S. C. Ct. N. Y.) 434.

terstate commerce. Id.; Decker V. Baltimore
R. R. Co. 607.


Power of Congress to authorize foreign cor-
ANIMALS. See COMMERCE, 41; Live poration to build bridge. (U. 8. C. Ct. N. J.)

414, 426, 435.


In cases arising under the law merchant, the

CAR LOAD CLASSIFICATIONS. See Supreme Court of the United States bas

CHARGES AND DISCRIMINATION, 41. held itself less bound by the decisions of the state courts than in other cases. Cited in CARRIERS. See AGENTS AND BROKERS; Smith v. Alabama (U. S. L. ed. 508) 809.





RATES. 1. The Commission will not make rules Common; who are; duties. Note, 857



CHARGES AND DISCRIMINATION. small and large towns, although the effect I. IN GENERAL.

may be prejudicial to the latter.

Crew8 v.


13. The purpose of the Interstate Commerce a. Rules as to Rates.

Act requires that when circumstances will b. Particular Localities.

fairly admit of it, charges to all points for JII. TRANSPORTATION OF SPECIFIC ARTICLES. like service should be made relatively IV. REFUSAL TO FURNISH CARS.

equal. Id. V. REFUSAL TO AFFORD FACILITIES TO 14. When the reasonableness of rates is in CONNECTING LINES.

question, charges on long through lines canVI. CARRIAGE OF PASSENGERS.

not offer a just basis for comparison with loBRIEFS AND NOTES.

cal rates for relatively short distances. ld.

15. A carrier is not responsible for See LONG AND SHORT HAUL; RATES; TICKETS. rates made by connecting road merely

because of its giving them in connection with I. IN GENERAL,

its own rates to parties making through ship1. Powers and procedure of the Com- ments. Id. mission. 408, 446.

16. That a refusal to give a through 2. Section 1 requiring charges to be reason rate as for one shipment operates prejudiable, and section 2, forbidding unjust discrimi. cially to the town desiring privilege, does not pation, apply, when exceptional charges make the refusal an unjust discrimination, are made under section 4, as they do in other when the carrier applies the same rule to all

Re Southern R. & S. A880. (Re Louis towns. Id. ville & Nashville R. Co.) 278.

17. Discrimination must consist of allow3. A variety of practical considerations must ing one party what is denied another. Id. enter into making of freight rates and de. 18. Carrier need not give the merchants termine to a great extent whether rates are of towns on its line the privilege of ship. reasonable. Evans v. Oregon Railway & Navi. ping their goods from the point of purchase to gation Co. 641.

their own locality and from there to the place 4. Railroad companies cannot be required to of sale of the goods, at the same rate as would make freight rates upon mere conject- have been charged from the point of purchase Id.

to the point of ultimate delivery. Id. 5. The burden of proving the exaction of unreasonable rates is on petitioner. Hard.

b. Particular Localities. ing v. Chicago etc. R. R. Co. 375.

19. Beatrice, Neb.-Beatrice Board of Trade II. DISCRIMINATION AGAINST LOCALITIES.

v. Union Pacific R. Co. et al. 701.

20. Biloxi in favor of New Orleans-Dun. a. Rules as to Rates.

bar v. Louisville & Nashville R. Co. 592. 6. The relative reasonableness of rates 21. Boston-Boston Chamber of Commerce v. from western points to Atlantic seaboard is Boston & Albany R. Co et al. 354, 391, 462, governed by circumstances and condi- 604. tions affecting traffic to points between which

22. There is no unjust discrimination in rates are given. Boston Chamber of Commerce charging more to Boston than to New York in v. Lake Shore & M. S. R. Co. 754.

rates from Chicago. Id. 754. Export Trade of 7. The length and character of the haul, the Boston, Re, 18, 23, 25; Fitchburg R. Co. 26. cost of the service, the volume of the business, and the conditions of competition, etc., are Norfolk & Western R. Co. 483, 588.

23. Carriage by indirect route-Ketron v. elements bearing upon such charges. Id.

24. Delaware-Fruits and vegetables-Dela8. Rates should be so relatively reason. folk R. Co. et al. 649.

ware State Grange v. New York, Phila. & Nor. able as to protect communities and business against unjust discrimination. Boards of Trade

25. Detroit, Mich.Detroit Board of Trade Union v. Chicago, M. & St. P. R. Co. 608.

v. Grand Trunk R. Co. 698, 701. 9. A carrier operating parallel lines and ac

26. Hartford, Conn.—Water Commercecepting lower rates on one line should Hartford & N. Y. Trans. Co. v. New York & make corresponding charges on other line. Ia. New England R. Co. 314. 10. When a railroad company in establish

27. Hartwell, Ga.-McMullan v. Richmond ing its charges on the different branches of its & Danville R. Co. 483. road so adjusted them as to divert trade and 28. Hot Springs, N. C.-Hot Springs v. Westbusiness to one locality, such unreasonable ern N. C. R. Co. 316. preference for one place is not excused 29. Hudson, Mipn.-Fulton v. Chicago, St. by the fact that the rates are the result of Paul, M. & 0. R. Co. 375; Harding v. Same, competition with other carriers. Raymond 375. v. Chicago, M. & St. P. R. Co. 627.

30. Lincoln, Neb.-Lincoln Board of Trade 11. An advantage given to a competing v. Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co. et al. 647; Lincoln town on a main line must not be unreasonable. Board of Trade v. Southern Pacific R. Co. 647, Id.

702; Lincoln Board of Trade v. Union Pacific 12. It not ground of complaint that railroad R. Co. 702; Plummer v. Union Pacific R. Co. et company equalizes its rates as between al. 648. INTER S.

31. Marshallville, Ga.- Siappey v. Central 46. Every carrier is held liable for correct R. Co. of Ga. et al. 675, 812.

ness of weight and classification of freight re. 32. Milwaukee, Wis.Milroaukee Chamber ceived so far as same can be practically ascer: of Commerce v. Flint & Pere Marquette R. Co. tained. Id. et al. 774, 792.

47. Devices for evasion of Act commented 33. Minneapolis, Minn,-St. Louis Millers' on. Id. A880. 22.

48. Recommendations by Commission for 34. New Orleans, La. -Cotton-New Orleans regulations for detecting underbilling and of Cotton Exchange v. New Orleans, Cincinnati & legislative action imposing penalty upon ship. Texas Pac. R. Co. 648.

pers guilty of underbilling. Id. 35. Opelika, Ala., in favor of Montgomery

49. Coal rates-Ohio Coal Exchange v. Wis and Columbus-- Columbus & Western R. Co. consin Cent. R. Co. 793, 812; Rend v. Chicago 314, 494; Harwell v. Columbus & Western R. & N. W. R. Co. 793. 812. Co. 494, 631; Re Opelika Board of Trade, 314, 50. A discount allowed by a railroad com. 494, 631.

pany where consignments of coal in one year 36. Phillipstown and Brady's Bend-Coal— shall amount to 30,000 tons or upward is an Allegheny River Coal Producers A880. V. Alle unjust discrimination. Providence Coal Co. v. gheny Valley R. Co. 604.

Providence & Worcester R. Co. 363. 37. Providence and East Providence, R. I.

51. Differences in rates per car load and less A higher rate on coal from Providence than quantities-Ayres v. Union Pacific R. Co. 397; from East Providence is an unjust discrimina. Classification of Railroad Freights, 317, 355. tion, and under the circumstances it is not per- 52. Grain and flour from Schenectady, N. Y. miesible to make an additional charge because - Thatcher v. Fitchburg R. Co. 356. of inconvenience attending transaction of busi. 53. Live stock from Covington, Ky.-Carness at East Providence. Providence Coal Co. riers cannot make the yards of a certain com. v. Providence & Worcester R. Co. 316, 363.

pany their exclusive stock depot at a certain 38. Walla Walla, W. T.-The Oregon Rail. place, there being other stock yards near by way & Navigation Company is ordered to charging lower rates. Keith v. Kentucky Centcease charging more than 232 cents per 100 ral R. Co. et al. 316, 601, pounds or $4.70 per ton on wheat transported 54. Lumber-Railroad Ties—Classification by it on its lines from Walla Walla, Washing. of railroad ties in different class from other ton Territory, to Portland, Oregon, during the lumber is an unjust discrimination. Reynolds present grain season. Evans v. Oregon Rail- v. Western New York & P. R. Co. 600, 685; way & Navigation Co. 314, 326, 641; Reed v. Reynolds v. New York & Phila, R. Co. Id. Same, 314, 328, 641.

55. Rates of carrier under desire to keep up

on its line a material for which it has use or to III. TRANSPORTATION OF SPECIFIC ARTICLES. keep the price low for its own advantage can

39. The Commission should clearly see that not be justified. Id. duty requires an answer to the question, on ex- 56. Lumber-Differences in rates between parte application, whether special privileges hewn and sawed lumber-Jackson v. St. Louis, by a railroad to manufacturers in a single line Arkansas & Texas R. Co. 476, 599. of trade, and not to manufacturers generally, 57. Lumber from Dalton, Ga., Farrar v. is consistent with the law, before it does so. Re East Tennessee, Va. & Ga. R. Co. et al. 600, 764. Iowa Barb Steel Wire Co. 605.

58. Lumber from Fair Haven, Vt.-Griffith 40. Beer from Milwaukee-Stahl v.Oregon R. v. Delaware & Hudson Canal Co. 396, 483. & Nav. Co. 314.

59. Meat products from Chicago—Dressed 41. Car load classifications-Leggett v. Balti- Meat Cases," 294, 303, 314, 464. more & 0. R. Co. 396; Thurber v. New York

60. Milk from Orange Co. N. Y.-Howell v. Central & H. R. R. Co. et al. 397, 684.

New York, L. E. & W. R. Co. 467; Re Milk 42. Cattle in Burton stock cars—Leonard v. Traffic, 24, 292, 315, 467. Union Pac. R. Co. 472, 627.

61. Mineral water from Lansing, Mich.43. The expense of hauling the Burton cars in Michigan Congress Water Co. v. Chicago & G. one direction unloaded, since by their construc- T. R. Co. 797. tion they are not suited to carry general freight, 62. Pearline, classification-Pye v. Southand the fact that a large percentage of ordi- ern Railway & Steamship A880. 486. nary cattle cars are back loaded upon long 63. Pearline must be placed in fifth class hauls of western roads, are considerations freight in classification of Southern Railway which justify difference in charge against ship- & steamship Association, and relative differpers who prefer to hire improved stock cars.ence in rates on pearline and common soap Burton Stock Car Co. v. Chicago, Burlington & must not exceed difference of sixty cents per Quincy R. R. Co. 329.

100 pounds on pearline and thirty-three cents 44. Classification of freights and underbill. on common soap. Pyle v. East Tennessee, Va. ing-Commercial Exchange of Phila. v. Erie De- & Ga. R. Co. 600, 767. spatch, 778, 821; Re Underbilling, 778, 813, 821 ; 64. Rates for carrying pearline and common Walker v. Baltimore &0. R. Co. et al. 649. soap to be maintained by Southern Railway &

45. Underbilling weights of freight, whereby Steamship Association, stated. Id. one person pays less compensation for like serv. 65. Statement of grounds of difference of ices than another is wriiten inbibition of Act. classification of freight by railroad companies Re Underbilling, 813.

given. Id.

66. Petroleum oil— Brady V. Pa. R. Co. fact that it could make more money by us649, 810; Nicolia v. Pa. R. Co. 649, 810; Rice ing its regular coal cars on another portion v. Western N. Y. & P. R. Co. 717, 792, 795, of its line. Id. 811; Rice v. Louisville & Nashville R. Co. et al.

85. That at certain time article can not be 354, 376, 443, 478-482, 722.

profitably shipped at existing tariff 67. Terms for rolling stock for transporta rate is not conclusive evidence that that rate tion of petroleum oil should be uniform and is unreasonable. Id. published with rate sheets. Rice v. Louisville

86. The N. Y., L. E. & W.R. Co., extending &Nashville R. Co. 722.

to Dayton, Ohio, by agreement being consid68. If from peculiarity of traffic, carrier ered with C., C., C. & I. R. Co., extending from cannot supply such stock, and consignors sup. Dayton to Cincinnati, an initial road at Cinply it for themselves carriers must not allow cinnati, with the right to make rates to that its deficiences in this particular to be made place, Cincinnati must be treated as point up. means of putting at advantage those who make on line for the purpose of proceeding use in same traffic of facilities it supplies. Id. against the company for unjust discrimination

Id. 69. Charge of transportation of oil in tank in furnishing coal cars. cars should be same as charged for transpor. 87. Carrier, charged with unjust discrimtation of barrel shipments of oil. Id.

ination, may show that it made extra exer. 70. That there are greater risks to carrier's tions in good faith to obtain cars for ship. property from such shipments does not justify per from connecting line to whom shipper had

to look for such cars. greater charges therefor. Id.

Riddle V. Baltimore &

0. R. Co. 701, 778. 71. Allowance can be made to owners of tank cars for their use. Id.

88. In absence of custom, carrier need not 72. United States supplies-A carrier may for his freight; it is the duty of the shipper to

notify shipper that it can not obtain cars make special rates with individuals to enable obtain this information for himself. Id. the latter to make proposals to the Interior De. partment for transportation of Indian supplies,

89. Refusal to carry coal-Heck v. East Ten. such transportation being for the United nessee, Va. & Ga. R. Co. et al. 498, 775. States. Re Indian Supplies, 22.

90. Transportation of lumber— Missouri & 73. Wheat from Colfax, W. T.-McClaine Iu. Tie & Lumber Co. v. Cape Girardeau & v. Oregon R. & Nav. Co. 395.

Southwestern R. Co. 292. 74. Wheat from Mazeppa, Minn.- Raymond

91. Dakota wheat--Holbrook v. St. Paul, v. Chicago, Milwaukee & St. P. R. Co. 474,627. Minneapolis & Manitoba R. Co. 315, 323. 75. Wheat from Minnesota towns-Boards

92. Manitoba wheat,Derby V. St. Paul, of Trade Union v. Chicago, Milwaukee & St. P. Minneapolis & Manitoba R. Co. 315. R. Co. 608.


NECTING LINES. 76. Rice v. Louisville & Nashville R. Co. 722.

93. Interchange of traffic, Western & At77. Refusing to furnish cars for transporta lantic R. Co. v. East Tenn., Va. & Ga. R. Co. tion, when all cars are needed for trans. 488; Worcester Excursion Car Co. v. Pennsylportation of freight which has accumulat- vania R. Co. 811. ed along the line is not violation of Act. Rid. dle v. Pittsburgh & L. E.R. Co. 601, 688.

94. Burton Stock Car Company, which fur:

Dishes stock cars to shippers over railroad, does 78. It is duty of carrier to furnish cars not exchange with or use cars belonging to ratably to shippers along its line until the others, and is not a connecting line entitled to emergency is passed. Id.

equal facilities for interchange of traffic under 79. A charge of preference of cars to one section 3, par. 2, of Act. Burton Stock Car Co. v. trade over another, and of a preference to Chicago etc. R. R. Co. 329. shippers in not requiring them to load or unload its cars promptly was not sustained by nated against by refusal of railroad companies

95. Such company is not unjustly discrimithe evidence. Id.

to pay same rate of milage for its cars as for 80. At times of special pressure, regular ordinary freight cars. Id. customers are not entitled to preference over occasional ones. Riddle v. New York, L. of other railway companies used upon paying

96. Customary milage rate for freight cars E. & W. R. Co. 787.

company's line, and which payment is, by in81. Shipper need not make special terchange of cars, practically equalized among contract with carrier to be entitled to trans- different roads, is not the measure of payment portation for goods. Id.

for the use of cars belonging to other persons 82. Less desirable freight must be ac- than railroad companies. Id. cepted upon reasonable terms, as well as that

97. Charges by receiver of railroad in relawhich is more desirable. Id.

tion to interstate commerce business must be 83. When equipment of carrier usually reasonable and just; and there can be no dis. applied to transportation of particular article crimination as to rates, charges or facilities for is not equal to demand, carrier must ap- or against two connecting steamship lines. propriate other cars to such service. Id. Re Mallory (U. 8. C. Ct. Fla.) 294.

84. Carrier is not justified in refusing cars 98. Refusal to interchange freight-Crews for transportation of coal at certain point by Iv. Richmond & Danville R. Co. 490, 492, 703; INTER S.

[ocr errors]
« PreviousContinue »