Изображения страниц
PDF
EPUB

Rate adjustments between localities cannot be made with reference to cost of power, fuel, labor, etc. in the respective communities.— Matter of Rates on Corn & Corn Products, 11 Inters. Com. R. 212.

A carrier cannot, by a manipulation of billing, neutralize the advantage which one community has by reason of its favorable location.— Cannon Falls Elev. Co. v. Ch. G. W. R. Co., 10 Inters. Com. R. 650.

Carriers must not favor one city above another simply because it is stronger and more influential.- Holdzkom v. Mich. Cent. R. Co., 9 Inters. Com. R. 42.

It is an unlawful system of rate-making which enables merchants of one town to compete with merchants of another at their own doors on equal terms, but debars the latter from such competition with the former. - Board of Trade v. Nashville, C. & St. L. R. Co., 8 Inters. Com. R. 503. A carrier must recognize the geographical position and commercial importance of a city on its line, and cannot use its powers to deprive that community of the competitive advantages which the enterprise of its citizens has secured.- Danville v. So. R. Co., 8 Inters. Com. R. 409.

That a carrier can get reshipments from the favored locality and not from the other, does not justify it in making a rate to one competing locality which gives the former a practical monopoly over the latter.Savannah Bureau v. L. & N. R. Co., 8 Inters. Com. R. 377.

A carrier cannot be compelled, in rate-making, to ignore distance in order to place two communities on a commercial equality.-N. Y. Prod. Exch. v. B. & O. R. Co., 7 Inters. Com. R. 612; Savannah Bureau of F. & T. v. Charleston & S. R. Co., 7 Inters. Com. R. 458.

Not every inequality in rates between localities is a preference or prejudice, nor is every preference or prejudice undue.- Commercial Club of Omaha v. Ch. & N. W. R. Co., 7 Inters. Com. 387.

That a railway cannot earn a proper return without discriminating between localities does not justify such discrimination.- Brewer v. L. & N. R. Co., 7 Inters. Com. R. 224.

In fixing rates, carriers have no right to disregard distance and natural advantages in order to bring about a commercial equality.Commercial Club of Omaha v. Ch. R. I. & P. R. Co., 6 Inters. Com. R. 647; Colorado F. & I. Co. v. So. Pac. Co., 6 Inters. Com. R. 488; James v. C. P. R. Co., 4 Inters. Com. R. 45, 110, 274, 5 I. C. C. R. 612; Eau Claire v. Ch. M. & St. P. R. Co., 3 Inters. Com. R. 174, 314, 4 Inters. Com. R. 65, 5 I. C. C. R. 264.

Each locality competing with others in a common market is entitled to reasonable and just rates at the hands of the carriers serving it and to the benefit of all its natural advantages.- Freight Bureau v. C. N. O. & T. P. R. Co., 6 Inters. Com. R. 195.

A town less favorably situated than its competitor, which is located on a through line, is not entitled to a local rate from such town to the through line so low as to overcome the more advantageous location of its competitor.- Chamber of Commerce of M. v. Great Northern R. Co., 4 Inters. Com. R. 44, 230, 5 I. C. C. R. 571.

Relatively less rates per ton per mile on freight from places more remote from the common market, are not justified to overcome the natural transportation advantages of one community and thereby enable others to compete with it in such market.- Chamber of Commerce v. Gt. Northern R. Co., 4 Inters. Com. R. 44, 230, 5 I. C. C. R. 571.

A railroad cannot discriminate against a town it does not reach and in whose traffic it does not participate.-Eau Claire v. Ch. M. & St. P. R. Co., 3 Inters. Com. R. 174, 314, 4 Inters. Com. R. 65, 5 I. C. C. R. 264.

Carriers cannot adjust their rates so as to keep a great staple industry, like that of raising pork and making its products, in one locality or region, even though great capital is invested in that industry there.- Chicago Board of Trade v. Ch. & A. R. Co., 2 Inters. Com. R. 410, 505, 3 Inters. Com. R. 233, 284, 4 I. C. C. R. 158.

If carriers give to small towns rates as favorable as to the larger, the Interstate Commerce Commission will not interfere.- Martin v. C. B. & Q. R. Co., 2 Inters. Com. R. 32, 2 I. C. C. R. 25.

A carrier acquiring and operating different competing lines cannot discriminate between localities or its patrons by making different tariffs for the several divisions.— 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.

That a carrier operates parallel lines and adopts low rates for one of them, requires similar concessions to persons shipping over the other line, that the locality along such line may not be subjected to undue disadvantage.- Boards of Trade v. Ch. M. & St. P. R. Co., 1 Inters. Com. R. 608, 1 I. C. C. R. 215.

If a railway, in establishing its charges on the different divisions of its road, so adjusts them as to divert trade and business to one locality which naturally, under an equitable adjustment of charges, would go to another, such unreasonable preference for one place and disadvantage for another are not excused by the fact that some of such rates are not entirely voluntary, but the result of competition with other carriers.- Raymond v. Ch. B. & Q. R. Co., 1 Inters. Com. R. 592, 1 I. C. C. R. 230.

In a statute prohibiting discrimination against any locality, there is no restriction on the word "locality," and it may refer to a village,

city, county, or portion of the state, the meaning in each case to be determined by the territory which shall be found to have been discriminated against.-State v. Fremont, E. & M. V. R. Co., 22 Neb. 313, 35 N. W. 118.

[13] Forwarding out of order of receipt.

Forwarding goods of one shipper out of the order in which they were received may constitute an unlawful preference.- Hill & M. v. St. Louis S. W. R. Co., 7 Tex. Ct. R. 336, 812, 75 S. W. 874.

[14] Preference to shipments of perishable property.

The anthracite coal strike caused an unprecedented use of defendant's lines for carrying bituminous coal east for industrial and domestic purposes.- Held, that the defendants probably had the right to give such freight a preference over hay, even issuing an embargo against articles like hay, and it was not improper that live stock, perishable freights, and material or supplies for the railroad should be exempted from any embargo imposed.— Daish v. Cleveland, A. & C. R. Co., 9 Inters. Com. R. 513.

When a carrier is unable to immediately transport all property delivered to it for carriage, he may, and it is his duty to, give preference to that which is perishable.-Tierney v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. Co., 76 N. Y. 305, affg. s. c. 10 Hun (N. Y.), 569, 67 Barb. (N. Y.) 538.

[15] Refusal to transport.

Duty of carrier to transport,-see ante, § 26, note [11].

It is not an unjust discrimination against any locality for an express company to refuse to receive currency for shipment at that point in cases where it will be necessary to keep the same in the express office over night, where it appears that the same rule is in force in forty-one other stations similarly situated.-Platt v. Le Cocq, 158 Fed. 723.

A railroad cannot refuse to transport coal tendered by a shipper on the ground that it is of inferior quality to other coal also produced along its line, and that the marketing of the inferior coal will seriously affect the sale and consequently the shipment of the superior quality.— Olanta Coal Co. v. Beach Creek R. Co., 144 Fed. 150.

Under the Interstate Commerce Act as amended, common carriers subject thereto cannot lawfully refuse transportation as therein defined, but must upon reasonable request afford the same upon established rates filed and kept posted as required by law. The purposes of the law cannot be defeated by the failure of carriers to include in their schedules and to keep posted the rates for the entire service rendered,

for example for both transportation proper and refrigeration, which under the law they are bound to provide.— Waxelbaum v. Atlantic C. L. R. Co., 12 Inters. Com. R. 205.

A rule of an express company provided: "Agents at common points must decline to accept for transportation business originating at their offices, destined to exclusive offices of other companies having offices at points of origin." This rule was amended by adding the following: "Provided, however, that the said shipment shall not be refused if the shipper insists upon forwarding it and tenders the agent the full amount necessary to pay the charges of this company in advance, at its regular local rate, to the point of transfer to the connecting company," etc.- Held, that the rule is open to serious objection, inasmuch as it is not only contradictory in its terms, but is certain in practice to have discriminating effect as between shippers who insist upon the transportation, notwithstanding the agent's refusal, and shippers who do not insist upon the transportation after the agent shall have refused the shipments. Herendeen v. U. S. Exp. Co. Decided by the N. Y. Public Service Commission of the Second District, February 18, 1908.

An express company refused to accept and carry certain fragile goods unless the shipper would accept a receipt limiting the company's liability for breakage, etc.-Held, mandamus will not be granted to compel the carrier to carry the goods, subject to all the common law liabilities of a common carrier.- People ex rel. Walker v. Babcock, 16 Hun (N. Y.), 313.

Where a railroad is under the military control of the government for a period, it cannot be held liable for refusing freights when it would not be safe to undertake their carriage, or for discrimination in consequence of military orders.- Phelps v. Ill. Cent. R. Co., 94 Ill. 548.

A railroad incurs no liability for refusing to receive goods, where, by reason of unusual pressure of business, it has not facilities for handling all freight which is tendered.- Louisville & N. R. Co. v. Queen City Coal Co., 99 Ky. 217, 18 Ky. L. R. 126, 35 S. W. 626.

When a carrier has furnished itself with the appliances necessary to transport the amount of freight which may, in the usual course of events, be reasonably expected to be offered to it for carriage, taking into a consideration the fact that at certain seasons more cars are needed, it has fulfilled its duty in that regard, and it will not be required to provide for such a rush of grain or other goods for transportation as may only occur in a given locality temporarily, or at long intervals of time.- State ex rel. Crandall v. C. B. & Q. R. Co., 72 Neb. 542, 101 N. W. 23; State ex rel. McComb v. C. B. & Q. R. Co., 71 Neb. 593, 99 N. W. 309.

[16] Consideration of amount shipped.

That the carrier could transport more coal to market if it could concentrate the shipping points and confine the business to large shippers, does not excuse undue prejudice in the matter of facilities.- Red Rock F. Co. v. B. & O. R. Co., 11 Inters. Com. R. 438.

[17] Consideration of extent of patronage of shipper.

That a shipper is a regular patron of the carrier does not justify giving him preference in the use of equipment, etc.- Riddle v. N. Y. L. E. & W. R. Co., 1 Inters. Com. R. 787, 1 I. C. C. R. 594

A railroad is not justified in refusing equal facilities to the owners of a mine merely because such owners also ship coal over another road. - Chicago & A. R. Co. v. Suffern, 129 Ill. 274, 21 N. E. 824.

[18] Giving of special privileges or facilities.

Elevation of grain not interstate commerce,- see ante, § 25, note [5]. Icing and refrigeration of cars for interstate transportation is interstate commerce, see ante, § 25, note [6].

Wharfage not interstate commerce,- -see ante, § 25, note [6]. Duty of carrier as to icing and refrigeration,- see ante, § 26, note [18].

Duty of carrier to furnish terminal facilities,-see ante, § 26, note [18].

Duty of carrier to publish charges for special services,-see ante, § 28, notes [19], [21].

Party-rate tickets must be available to all persons,- see post, § 33, note [20].

The assumption by the carrier of the cost of getting the shipper's property to the carrier's rails- a substantial consideration not mentioned in or contemplated by, the published schedules - is unlawful, under the Interstate Commerce Act.-U. S. v. Chicago & A. R. Co., 148 Fed. 646.

[ocr errors]

The existence for a long time before the passage of the Interstate Commerce Act, of a custom to collect and deliver freight by the carrier in one city, and not in others, may be one of the circumstances mentioned in the Act as elements in determining whether there has been unjust discrimination.- Detroit, G. H. & M. R. Co. v. Interst. Com. Commission, 74 Fed. 803, revg. s. c. 57 Fed. 1005; affd. 167 U. S. 633, 17 Sup. Ct. R. (U. S.) 986.

The fact that a carrier, in his schedule of freight rates, groups together two cities on its line, some distance apart, and charges the same for transportation to both, is not to be treated as a conclusive admission that the service is performed under substantially similar

« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »