Изображения страниц
PDF
EPUB
[graphic]

Differentials of two cents to Philadelphia and three cents to Baltimore below the rates to New York appear to be legitimately based on the competitive relations of the carriers.- New York Prod. Exch. v. B. & 0. R. Co., 7 Inters. Com. R. 612.

A differential of more than five cents a hundred pounds on wheat as compared with rates for flour is discriminative and unlawful.Kauffman Milling Co. v. Mo. Pac. R. Co., 2 Inters. Com. R. 770, 779, 4 I. C. C. R. 417.

Arbitrary differentials resulting in discriminations between places are unlawful.- Toledo Prod. Exch. & E. Kemble v. L. S. & M. S. R. Co., 2 Inters. Com. R. 492, 569, 3 Inters. Com. R. 830, 5 I. C. C. R. 166.

[61] Group rates and basing points.

Proof of tangible injury necessary to make preference arising from group rate unreasonable,- see ante, note [6].

The mill-group system of rate-making is not necessarily discriminative.- Quimby v. Clyde Ss. Co., 12 Inters. Com. R. 459.

Group rates must of necessity result in a certain amount of discrimination. Such rates are not for this reason necessarily unlawful, since the discrimination may not be undue; but certainly in the construction of groups, care should be taken to produce as little discrimination as possible.- Desel-Boettcher Co. v. K. C. S. R. Co., 12 Inters. Com. R. 254.

Carriers having voluntarily made certain cities common points as to rate-making, they must not now discriminate unjustly as between them to the disadvantage or injury of markets and enterprises which their assistance has built up on the reasonable expectation that common rates and substantially equal privileges would be continued.- City Council v. Mo. Pac. R. Co., 12 Inters. Com. R. 127.

A carrier cannot, by the basing point system, arbitrarily make traffic bear the cost of two separate and distinct services beyond its destination; viz., the haul to the basing point and the haul back.- Gustin v. Burl. & M. R. Co., 8 Inters. Com. R. 481.

Combination rates always afford an advantage to the basing point, and entail some disadvantage upon the town to which the combined rates are applied, and when traffic is brought to the two places to be distributed in common territory, the preferences and prejudices resulting from such rates must generally be held to be undue.- Gustin v. A. T. & S. F. R. Co., 8 Inters. Com. R. 277.

Basing points cannot be arbitrarily selected.- Board of Trade v. Central of Ga. R. Co., 8 Inters. Com. R. 142.

A carrier cannot make one city a basing point and another not, if the conditions of competition, etc., are substantially similar.- Board of T. of Dawson v. Central of Ga. R. Co., 8 Inters. Com. R. 142.

It is not undue prejudice to refuse to apply the group rate rule to Omaha and Council Bluffs.- Commercial Club of Omaha v. Ch. & N. W. R. Co., 7 Inters. Com. R. 387.

The arbitrary whim of traffic managers cannot lawfully make one city a basing point and give competition its natural effect on rates there, but refuse to make another city likewise a basing point and to let competition have its natural influence on rates there.- Brewer v. L. & N. R. Co., 7 Inters. Com. R. 224.

The practice of making one rate on the same product over a large district, and thus equalizing the burdens of transportation to the same market, is only justifiable under special and exceptional circumstances, and is not to be encouraged when the difference in the transportation expense from the various points is considerable and substantial.- Newland v. No. Pac. R. Co., 6 Inters. Com. R. 131.

The Interstate Commerce Commission does not approve the method of rate-making which consists of making a rate to certain places, which are generally competitive points, and called basing points, and for all other places, generally places where there is no competition, by adding the local rate from the basing point which will yield the lowest possible aggregate rate. The inherent defect is that by this method the carriers treat traffic, intended to be continuous, as consisting of two kinds of service independent of each other, the one to the basing point on a through rate, and the other from the basing point to the intermediate point on a local rate.- Perry v. Florida C. & P. R. Co., 3 Inters. Com. R. 416, 740, 5 I. C. C. R. 97.

The Interstate Commerce Act and the Interstate Commerce Commission do not approve the basing-point, or distributive point, method of rate-making, which builds up a particular center at the expense of surrounding towns, etc.- Raworth v. No. Pac. R. Co., 2 Inters. Com. R. 614, 3 Inters. Com. R. 857, 5 I. C. C. R. 234.

Group rates from various coal mines may be made where the commercial necessities are substantially the same for all.- Rand v. Ch. & N. W. R. Co., 2 Inters. Com. R. 313, 2 I. C. C. R. 540; Howell v. N. Y. L. E. & W. R. Co., 2 Inters. Com. R. 162, 2 I. C. C. R. 272.

Owners of mines in a given district are not, as a matter of law, subjected to an unreasonable disadvantage by a system of group rates based on more than actual distance when shipping east and less than actual distance when shipping west.- - Coxe Bros. v. Lehigh V. R. Co., 2 Inters. Com. R. 195, 229, 3 Inters. Com. R. 460, 4 I. C. C. R. 535.

Charging the same rates for transporting milk from all points reached by a carrier's regular milk trains is not unlawful, but probably the best system. Howell v. N. Y. L. E. & W. R. Co., 2 Inters. Com. R. 162, 2 I. C. C. R. 272.

Differences in service by the carrier at various points under the same group rate, are unjust discriminations.- Stone v. Detroit, G. H. & M. R. Co., 2 Inters. Com. R. 152, 185, 3 Inters. Com. R. 60, 3 I. C. C. R. 613. A group rate is not unlawful if it places producers of the commodity on an equality in the common market.-Imperial Coal Co. v. Pittsburg & L. E. R. Co., 2 Inters. Com. R. 18, 92, 210, 436, 2 I. C. C. R. 604. [62] Charges for specific services.

Additional charges for special services,- see ante, § 26, note [35]. Carrier may not charge for special services not specified in published schedules, see post, § 33, note [1].

Power of Commission to regulate charges for special services,- see post, § 49, note [12].

An extra and separate charge for icing service is not an unjust discrimination, until shown to be unreasonable and contrary to law.Kundsen Ferguson Fruit Co. v. Mich. Cent. R. Co., 148 Fed. 968.

A reasonable additional charge for reconsignment privileges at a point where such reconsignment causes some expense to the carrier, is not discrimination.- St. Louis Hay & G. Co. v. Ill. Cent. R. Co., 11 Inters. Com. R. 486.

Charges for icing and refrigeration should be nondiscriminative.Matter of Charges for Transportation of Fruit, 11 Inters. Com. R. 129. In demurrage charges, refunds on account of delays because of weather, etc., must be bona fide and not arbitrary.- Pennsylvania Millers' Assn. v. Phila. & R. R. Co., 8 Inters. Com. R. 531.

A carrier may lawfully absorb the terminal charge on live stock in one market and exact it in another.- Cattle Raisers' Assn. v. Fort Worth & D. C. R. Co., 7 Inters. Com. R. 513.

Collecting a terminal charge on live stock but not on dead freight is not a discrimination against live stock. Cattle Raisers' Assn. v. Fort Worth & D. C. R. Co., 7 Inters. Com. R. 513.

A higher rate for a special service by the carrier, such as speedy transit for perishable freight, is not discriminatory.- Loud v. South Car. R. Co., 4 Inters. Com. R. 205, 5 I. C. C. R. 529.

A railroad cannot charge more for carrying grain to one elevator than to another elevator along its line in the same city.- Vincent v. Ch. & A. R. R. Co., 49 Ill. 33.

[63] Violations of long and short haul principle.

See also, post, § 32, note [29].

See also, post, § 36, note [6].

A greater charge for a shorter than a longer haul is an unreasonable charge and an unlawful discrimination, as well as a violation of the long

[ocr errors]

and short haul rule.- Phillips Co. v. L. & N. R. Co., 8 Inters. Com. R. 93.

Interst. Com. Act, § 3, forbidding unjust discriminations, applies even where a departure from the long and short haul rule of the Act is justified, if the disparity is so great as to result in discrimination.- Raworth v. No. Pac. R. Co., 2 Inters. Com. R. 614, 3 Inters. Com. R. 587, 5 I. C. C. R. 234.

[64] Gross and net weights.

Although the fact that most shippers of a given article in part of a described territory were permitted to secure reduced rates by billing at net weight, while many other shippers of the same article in another portion of that territory paid higher rates through billing at the full weight of the package and its contents, is ample warrant for an order requiring the carriers to remove the unjust discrimination as between such shippers by discounting the practice of shipping at net weights in any part of the territory, yet on the other hand, unless the net-weight practice was prevalent throughout substantially the whole territory affected, and either authorized by carriers generally in that territory or so well known from constant and general application as to receive implied sanction, it would not of itself constitute a sufficient ground for an order requiring a reduction in rates when all the carriers applied their established charges on the basis of gross rates.- Proctor v. C. H. & D. R. Co., 9 Inters. Com. R. 440, distinguishing 3 Inters. Com. R. 131, 4 I. C. C. R. 87.

An increase of one-sixth in the charge for the same service, through the device of charging for the gross instead of the net weight, is unreasonable.-Proctor v. C. H. & D. R. Co., 2 Inters. Com. R. 614, 3 Inters. Com. R. 131, 4 I. C. C. R. 87; distinguished, 9 Inters. Com. R. 440.

[65] Shipments in private cars.

If a shipper owns a car and rents it to the carrier, he cannot contract for the exclusive use of such car except under circumstances and on conditions which do not operate as a discrimination against shippers not owning cars.- Independent Ref. Assn. v. W. N. Y. & P. R. Co., 4 Inters. Com. R. 162, 5 I C. C. R. 415.

A charge for carrying barrel packages in transportation is unreasonable when no similar or corresponding charge is made to tank shippers of oil, and the result is a greater cost of transportation to shippers who do not own tank cars.- Independent Ref. Assn. v. W. N. Y. & P. R. Co., 4 Inters. Com. R. 162, 5 I C. C. R. 415.

An arbitrary allowance to tank shippers of oil for leakage, etc., is unlawful, when no corresponding allowance is made to barrel shippers.

[graphic]

Rice v. Cincinnati, W. & B. R. Co., 3 Inters. Com. R. 841, 5 I. C. C. R. 193.

Where the carrier does not furnish special cars for a particular kind of traffic, but some shippers do while others do not, the carrier should most carefully adjust rates so that in the relative charges to each there shall be no discrimination against the shipper who has to use the ordinary facilities afforded by the carrier.- Rice v. Cincinnati, W. & B. R. Co., 3 Inters. Com. R. 841, 5 I. C. C. R. 193.

[ocr errors]

The tank shipper may rightly enjoy the benefits of greater economy and convenience, but on no just principle of transportation can he lawfully be favored in the rates themselves.- Rice v. Cincinnati, W. & B. R. Co., 3 Inters. Com. R. 841, 5 I. C. C. R. 193.

In a contest between different and competing methods of distributing an article of general consumption, the railroads should stand in a neutral attitude, and if absolute impartiality cannot be perfectly maintained, the disadvantage ought not to be on the side of the weaker contestant.- Rice v. Cincinnati, W. & B. R. Co., 3 Inters. Com. R. 841, 5 I. C. C. R. 193.

In order to equalize conditions between tank and barrel shippers of oil, free return of barrels may be required, in a proper case.- Rice v. Cincinnati, W. & B. R. Co., 3 Inters. Com. R. 841, 5 I. C. C. R. 193.

Payment of rent for private cars can not be used to give a rebate or a discriminative rate.- Rice v. W. N. Y. & P. R. Co., 1 Inters. Com. R. 717, 792, 795, 811, 2 Inters. Com. R. 298, 4 I. C. C. R. 131.

It is the duty of a railroad to furnish suitable vehicles for the transportation of freight offered, and the fact that one shipper may be provided with cars of his own does not entitle him to an advantage in rates over a competitor who is not so provided.- State v. C. N. O. &T. P. R. Co., 47 Oh. St. 130, 23 N. E. 928, 7 L. R. A. 319n.

[66] What facts show unjust discrimination.

Discriminative contracts unlawful,- see ante, note [56]. Discriminations in sale of passenger tickets,-see ante, note [57]. Issuance of passes,- see ante, note [58].

Commodity rates,- see ante, note [59].

Arbitraries and differentials,- see ante, note [60].

Group rates and basing points,- see ante, note [61].

Charges for specific services,-see ante, note [62].

Violations of long and short haul rule,- see ante, note [63].

Gross and net weights,- see ante, note [64].

Shipments in private cars,- see ante, note [65].

Facts showing discrimination in through and local or foreign and domestic rates,- see post, note [67], [74].

« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »