Изображения страниц
PDF
EPUB

to be performed or in its utility and value to the person served, a fair relation of rates meets the carrier's obligation.- Carr v. No. Pac. R. Co., 9 Inters. Com. R. 1.

That certain rates are all that certain traffic will bear is no reason for carrying it at less than cost at the expense of other traffic.- In re Louisville & N. R. Co., 1 Inters. Com. R. 16, 278, 1 I. C. C. R. 31.

A carrier charged different rates for carrying steam and domestic coal. Held, that this was not an unjust discrimination.- Commonwealth v. L. & N. R. Co., 24 Ky. L. R. 509, 68 S. W. 1103.

[44]

Amount of freight shipped as affecting carriers' duty. Amount shipped as justification for discrimination in facilities,- see ante, § 32, note [16].

Discriminations in freight rates based solely on the amount of freight consigned are unlawful and actionable at common law. The larger proportionate expense of handling a smaller shipment does not, of itself, warrant a railroad in charging a higher rate thereon than, was charged for a larger shipment. Such increased proportionate expense does not differentiate the service performed for the several shippers, nor the conditions or circumstances under which it was performed.- Kinsley v. Buffalo, N. Y. & P. R. Co., 37 Fed. 181.

Before the passage of the Interstate Commerce Act it was held that discriminations in the rates charged by a carrier to a shipper, based solely on the amount of freight shipped, without regard to any conditions tending to decrease the cost of transportation, are contrary to sound public policy and violative of that equality of rights guaranteed every citizen.- Hays v. Pa. R. Co., 12 Fed. 309.

A carload rate made to meet water competition is not discriminative.— Kindel v. Boston & A. R. Co., 11 Inters. Com. R. 495.

Carriers may lawfully establish carload and less than carload rates on cotton.- Planters' Compress Co. v. C. C. C. & St. L. R. Co., 11 Inters. Com. R. 382; affd. and applied, Planters' Compress Co. v. Mo. K. & T. R. Co., 11 Inters. Com. R. 606.

Refusal to grant lower rates on cotton in carloads of 45,000 pounds or more is not an unlawful discrimination.— Planters' Compress Co. v. C. C. C. & St. L. R. Co., 11 Inters. Com. R. 382; affd. and applied, Planters' Compress Co. v. Mo. K. & T. R. Co., 11 Inters. Com. R. 606.

Carriers may not lawfully establish trainload and less than trainload rates on cotton.- Planters' Compress Co. v. C. C. C. & St. L. R. Co., 11 Inters. Com. R. 382; affd. and applied, Planters' Compress Co v. Mo. K. & T. R. Co., 11 Inters. Com. R. 606.

It is reasonable and proper for carriers to fix a minimum weight and charge for the transportation of less than carload shipments.-Wrigley v. C. C. C. & St. L. R. Co., 10 Inters. Com. R. 412.

A differential between carloads and less than carloads which is more than 50 per cent. of the car load rate is prima facie excessive, and requires special justification.- Business Men's League v. A. T. & S. F. R. Co., 9 Inters. Com. R. 318.

It is doubtful whether, under the Interstate Commerce Act, a lower rate on the same kind of traffic can be justified by the fact that the volume of movement is larger and therefore the cost of service less.Export & Domestic Rates, 8 Inters. Com. R. 214.

A lower rate on cargo or trainload lots than on carload lots is discriminative, even though all carload shippers are treated alike, and all trainload shippers alike.- Paine Bros. v. Lehigh V. R. Co., 7 Inters. Com. R. 213.

While it is proper to give a less rate to shipments in carload lots than to shipments in less than carload lots, an unreasonable disparity between the carload and less than carload rates is unjust discrimination.- Duncan v. A. T. & S. F. R. Co., 6 Inters. Com. R. 85.

The justice of a lower rate for carload lots can be decided only on the particular facts of each case.— - Brownell v. Columbus & C. M. R. Co., 4 Inters. Com. R. 285, 5 I. C. C. R. 638.

A lower rate on less than carload lots may be justified by the volume of traffic and facility in handling it.- Brownell v. Columbus & C. M. R. Co., 4 Inters. Com. R. 285, 5 I. C. C. R. 638.

The aggregate receipts of the carrier from a carload of large tonnage should be greater than from a carload of less tonnage, but other things being equal, the rate per cwt. should be less in the former case.- Murphy Co. v. Wabash R. Co., 3 Inters. Com. R. 649, 725, 5 I. C. C. R. 122. Mere quantity in shipments cannot be allowed to affect rates therefor. - Harvard Co. v. Pa. R. Co., 2 Inters. Com. R. 625, 3 Inters. Com. R. 257, 4 I. C. C. R. 212.

A different classification and rate for car-load and less than car-load lots is reasonable.— Thurber v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. Co., 1 Inters. Com. R. 397, 684, 2 Inters. Com. R. 742, 3 I. C. C. R. 473.

A difference between car-load and less than car-load rates so great as to destroy the business of small dealers, is unlawful discrimination.— Thurber v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. Co., 1 Inters. Com. R. 397, 684, 2 Inters. Com. R. 742, 3 I. C. C. R. 473.

What charge is reasonable and just in a common carrier in a given case is a complex question into which enters many elements for con

[graphic]

sideration, including questions of time, place, distance, facilities, quantity and character of goods, and many other matters. The carrier can afford to carry 10,000 tons of coal or other property to a given place for less compensation per ton than he could carry fifty, and where the business is of great magnitude a rebate from the standard rate might be just and reasonable while it could not fairly be granted to another who desired to have a trifling amount of goods carried to the same point. So long as the regular standard rates maintained by the carrier and offered to all are reasonable, one shipper cannot complain because his neighbor, by reason of special circumstances and conditions, can make it an object to the carrier to give him reduced rates. At common law, a carrier could make a discount from its reasonable general rates in favor of a particular customer or class of customers in isolated cases for special reasons and upon special conditions.- Lough v. Outerbridge, 143 N. Y. 271, 38 N. E. 292, 25 L. R. A. 674, affg. s. c. 68 Hun (N. Y.), 486, 22 N. Y. Supp. 976.

The fact that one shipper is able to furnish a larger number of carloads of freight for shipment than another shipper does not constitute a sufficient reason for discrimination in favor of the larger shipper.Louisville, E. & St. L. R. R. Co. v. Wilson, 132 Ind. 517, 32 N. E. 311, 18 L. R. A. 105n.

It is not per se a legal wrong for a carrier to give better rates to one who ships many car loads of grain than to one who ships a single car-load. Cleveland, C. C. & I. R. Co. v. Closser, 126 Ind. 348, 26 N. E. 159, 9 L. R. A. 754n.

Differences in rates between shippers, based on the amount of freight shipped without reference to conditions tending to decrease the cost of transportation, are unlawful discriminations.- Rothschild v. Wabash R. Co., 15 Mo. App. 242, 4 S. W. 418.

The equality clause of the Statute of Railway Transportation being a re-enactment of the common law against unreasonable and unjust discrimination, it does not require the same price per ton for transporting large and small amounts of coal between the same points. To hold otherwise, would be to unjustly discriminate against the large shipper. - Concord & P. R. Co. v. Forsaith, 59 N. H. 122.

A discrimination between shippers as to rates, based solely on the difference in the aggregate yearly amounts of freight shipped, cannot be upheld. Scofield v. L. S. & M. S. R. Co., 43 Oh. St. 571, 3 N. E. 907.

To charge for a hamper containing small parcels as for such parcels separately is unreasonable and discriminatory.- Pickford v. Grand J. R. Co., 10 M. & W. (Eng.) 399.

[45] - Other traffic from shipper or passenger as justification. Consideration of extent of patronage in determining whether there is unjust discrimination in furnishing facilities, see post, § 32, note [17].

That commercial travellers create freight business does not justify giving them special rates as travellers.- Larrison v. Ch. & G. T. R. Co., 1 Inters. Com. R. 369, 1 I C. C. R. 147.

It is proper for a carrier to give a less rate to a manufacturing concern to which it brings coal than to a coal dealer, where it appears that the coal carried for the manufacturing concern is of a quality inferior to that carried for the dealer, and that the carrier, in addition, receives manufactured products from the former for transportation while the carrier's business with the dealer is limited to the carrying of coal.Louisville & N. R. Co. v. Commonwealth, 108 Ky. 628, 22 Ky. L. R. 328, 57 S. W. 508.

It is not a valid ground for giving a preference to one of the customers of a railway company that he engages to employ other lines of the company for the carriage or traffic distinct from, and unconnected with, the goods in question, the advantage of carrying goods to other points not affecting the cost of carriage between the particular points. - Baxendale v. G. W. R. Co., 5 C. B. (N. S.) (Eng.) 309.

[46]

Exclusive patronage by shipper as affecting duty.

A railroad cannot require one shipper to pay more for carrying the same kind of merchandise under like conditions, to the same places, than it charges others merely because such shipper refuses to patronize that railroad exclusively, while other shippers do.- Menacho v. Ward, 27 Fed. 529.

A carrier may by special contract give reduced rates to customers who stipulate to give it all their business and refuse those rates to others who are not able or willing to so stipulate, provided the charge made to the latter is not excessive or unreasonable.- Lough v. Outerbridge, 143 N. Y. 271, 38 N. E. 22, 25 L. R. A. 674, affg. s. c. 68 Hun (N. Y.), 486, 22 N. Y. Supp. 976.

[47]

Discriminations to obtain traffic.

Where a railroad reduced rates on live stock in order to get its share of the traffic, for which several carriers were actively competing, it cannot be said that such reduction was voluntary," within the meaning of the Interstate Commerce Act.—Interst. Com. Commission v. Ch. G. W. R. Co., 141 Fed. 1003.

While a railroad has the undoubted right to change its rate on certain articles for the purpose of increasing its business, it has no right to

[graphic]

unduly discriminate against another kind of traffic.- Chicago Live Stock Exch. v. Ch. G. W. R. Co., 10 Inters. Com. R. 428.

That it enables the carrier to get reshipments he could not otherwise have, does not justify a discriminative rate.- Savannah Bureau v. L. & N. R. Co., 8 Inters. Com. R. 377.

A carrier may make a low rate to create traffic which otherwise would not be handled by any line.- Grain Shippers' Assn. v. Ill. Cent. R. Co., 8 Inters. Com. R. 158.

A carrier may discriminate, by giving a lower proportionate rate, in order to get business which would otherwise go by a different route, if its charge to the shipper complaining is no more than reasonable.Ragan v. Aiken, 77 Tenn. 609.

[48]

[ocr errors]

Unnecessary cost of operation not justification. Extraordinary or unnecessary cost of operation or management cannot be permitted to cause unreasonable or unjust rates, discriminations, preferences or prejudices.- Milk Prod. P. Assn. v D. L. & W. R. Co., 7 Inters. Com. R. 92.

[merged small][ocr errors][merged small]

An unlawful arbitrary is not justified by a desire of the carrier to protect its traffic by prohibiting every mill not located on its line from selling at points on its line.- Blackwell M. & E. Co. v. Mo. K. & T. R. Co., 12 Inters. Com. R. 25.

A carrier may not raise the classification of railroad ties in order to keep them on its own line and their price low for its own interests.Reynolds v. W. N. Y. & P. R. Co., 1 Inters. Com. R. 600, 685, 1 I. C. C. R. 393.

A carrier can not rightfully establish its rates in order to keep on its line material for which it has use, or to keep the price low for its own advantage Louisville, E. & St. L. R. R. Co. v. Wilson, 132 Ind. 517, 32 N. E. 311, 18 L. R. A. 367n.

[50]

[ocr errors]

Failure of railroad to pay expenses.

That the total receipts of a carrier from local freight rates are insufficient to meet the expenses of the local business, does not justify it in an inequality of rates between different parts of the state, in one part too high and in another too low, or prevent a state commission from insisting that the lower rate be the uniform rate.- Seaboard Air Line v. Florida, 203 U. S. 261, 27 Sup. Ct. R. (U. S.) 109, affg. s. c. 48 Fla. 129, 37 So. 314, 48 Fla. 150, 37 So. 658.

The fact that one branch of a railroad, considered as a separate railroad, fails to pay expenses, does not justify excessive or discriminatory rates.- Inters. Com. Commission v. L. & N. R. Co., 118 Fed. 613.

« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »