Изображения страниц
PDF
EPUB

plaintiff's machinery.- Railroad Commission of Texas v. Weld, 7 Tex. Ct. R. 122, 73 S. W. 529, revg. s. c. 3 Tex. Ct. R. 805, 4 Tex. Ct. R. 302, 68 S. W. 1117.

[28] Through routes and rates — In general.

Publication of joint rates and through routes,- see ante, § 28. Legislative control over joint tariffs,- see ante, § 28, note [26]. "Through routes" and "through rates" defined,- see ante, § 30, note [2].

What is lawful charge for through transportation when no joint rate has been established,- see post, § 30, note [8].

Limit of a proper through rate,- see ante, § 31, note [70].

Power of Commission to compel through routes and through rates,-see ante, note [24].

That a local rate is made part of a through rate does not render the through rate illegal.—Interst. Com. Commission v. Ala. Mid. R. Co., 74 Fed. 715, affg. s. c. 69 Fed. 227; affd. 168 U. S. 144, 18 Sup. Ct. R. (U. S.) 45.

Charges by a railroad for switching cars received from, or delivered to, other lines held not a part of the fixed through rate.- Chicago, M. & St. P. R. Co. v. Becker, 32 Fed. 849.

Where the public interest require through routes and rates but the same have been withdrawn, the Interstate Commerce Commission will order their restoration, in its discretion holding the final order in abeyance till the carriers have worked out the details.- American Nat. Live Stock Assn. v. Tex. & P. R. Co., 12 Inters. Com. R. 37.

The Interstate Commerce Commission will establish a through route and rate on beef cattle between given points, if it appears practicable to carry cattle that distance for slaughter.- Birmingham P. Co. v. Tex. & P. R. Co., 12 Inters. Com. R. 33.

Ordinarily a through interstate passenger fare should not exceed the sum of the local state fares over the same route, though there is no legal requirment to that effect.- Artz v. Seaboard Air Line R. Co., 11 Inters. Com. R. 458.

Carriers should not, as a general rule, be required to make through rates over indirect routes, or routes which are comparatively impracticable for the transportation of the traffic to which the rates are to be applied.- Commercial Club v. Ch. R. I. & P. R. Co., 6 Inters. Com. R. 647.

While through rates are not required to be made on a strictly mileage basis, mileage is, as a general thing an element of importance, to be considered in fixing transportation charges.- Board of Trade v. Ala. Mid. R. Co., 6 Inters. Com. R. 1.

Where the Pennsylvania R. Co. owns a portion of the through route, and a controlling interest in the capital stock of the corporation by

which the other part is operated, it cannot relieve itself from responsibility for excessive through rates by pleading the corporate existence of the latter company as a separate carrier.— Brady v. Pa. R. Co., 1 Inters. Com. R. 649, 2 Inters. Com. R. 78, 2 I. C. C. R. 131.

A through bill is one of the most important and valuable of transportation facilities.- Crews v. Richmond & D. R. Co., 1 Inters. Com. R. 490, 703, 1 I. C. C. R. 401.

[blocks in formation]

When called upon to fix a through rate, the Interstate Commerce Commission will not fix the division thereof until it appears that the carriers are unable to agree upon a division.- Cattle Raisers' Assn. v. G. H. & S. A. R. Co., 12 Inters. Com. R. 21.

If the through rates established by connecting lines are not unreasonable, the Interstate Commerce Commission cannot condemn the same on account of the divisions thereof to the various roads forming the through lines. Charlotte Assn. v. So. R. Co., 11 Inters. Com. R. 108.

[ocr errors]

If the allowances from a through rate in favor of the initial carrier are unreasonably large and result in unreasonably low proportions to the other connecting roads, this cannot be remedied by an advance in the total through rate charged to the public.- Central Y. P. Assn. v. Ill. Cent. R. Co., 10 Inters. Com. R. 505; Tift v. So. R. Co., 10 Inters. Com. R. 548.

The mere fact that a road is entirely owned by the largest individual shipper over it, or that it was originally organized and built for the purpose of doing the work of that shipper is not controlling against the making of joint rates with other railroads and the division thereof.Re Divisions of Joint Rates, 10 Inters. Com. R. 385.

When an unlawful rate results from some arbitrary share or division of a joint rate exacted by one of the carriers, the Interstate Commerce Commission will find the facts and state its conclusions as to such share or division. Warren-Ehret Co. v. Central R. Co. of N. J., 8 Inters. Com. R. 598.

While it is true that the shipper or consignee has no direct interest in the way a joint rate is divided between the carriers, nor in the amount of the division received by each carrier, he is entitled to inquire into such division when he complains that the joint rate is unlawful, for the amount so received by the different carriers may be significant upon the reasonableness of the aggregate charge.- Warren-Ehret Co. v. Central R. Co. of N. J., 8 Inters. Com. R. 598.

Under a statute authorizing railroad commissioners to establish through joint rates upon failure of railroads to do so after a demand by an interested person, the railroad commissioners will apportion the joint rate be

tween the connecting carriers, considering matters which should affect the division.- Burlington C. R. & N. Co. v. Dey, 82 Iowa, 312, 48 N. W. 98, 12 L. R. A. 436n.

The equitable principle of division between two or more connecting carriers, is the distribution pro rata of the aggregate rates, according to the length of carriage by each companion.- Ackerly v. R. Co., 36 Wis. 252; Rood v. Ch. M. & St. P. R. Co., 43 Wis. 146.

[30] Regulation of method of operation, practices, etc.

The Interstate Commerce Commission will correct the use of hypothetical weights, out of proportion to the actual weights, whereby tank shippers get more oil carried for the same money than barrel shippers.— Rice v. Cincinnati, W. & B. R. Co., 3 Inters. Com. R. 841, 5 I. C. C. R. 193.

The Interstate Commerce Commission will forbid an arbitrary allowance to tank shippers of oil for leakage, etc., when no corresponding allowance is made to barrel shippers.- Rice v. Cincinnati, W. & B. R. Co., 3 Inters. Com. R. 841, 5 I. C. C. R. 193.

The Interstate Commerce Commission will not compel a railroad to haul the sleeping cars of one private car company when it already has a sufficient supply of such cars from another company.— Worcester Ex. Car Co. v. Pa. R. Co., 1 Inters. Com. R. 811, 2 Inters. Com. R. 12, 792, 3 I. C. C. R. 577.

A short road wholly within one state, owning no rolling stock but used by coal companies, is an "instrumentality of shipment or carriage," permission to use which on equal reasonable terms may be compelled by the Interstate Commerce Commission.- Heck v. E. T. & V. R. Co., 1 Inters. Com. R. 498, 775, 1 I. C. C. R. 495.

It was not unfair and discriminatory for the common council of Buffalo to exempt the Belt Line Railroad from an ordinance regulating the speed at railroad crossings, such line being a local road carrying local passengers. Buffalo v. N. Y. L. E. & W. R. Co., 152 N. Y. 276, 46 N. E. 496, affg. s. c. 6 Misc. (N. Y.) 630, 27 N. Y. Supp. 297.

Where an ordinance required a street railway to run cars every 20 minutes between 12 M. and 6 A. M., the company, in endeavoring to show the unreasonableness of such a regulation, offered to show that it ran its cars for a time in obedience to the ordinance, and that they ran empty.— Held, that the exclusion of this testimony was improper.- Mayor v. Dry Dock, E. B. & B. R. Co., 133 N. Y. 104, 30 N. E. 563.

The power of the police commissioner of New York City to regulate traffic on the streets thereof does not imply power generally to prohibit traffic on such streets or portions of streets, except in an emergency, like a conflagration or an abnormal congestion of traffic due to some unusual cause.- Peace v. McAdoo, 110 App. Div. (N. Y.) 13, 96 N. Y. Supp. 1039.

A railroad company will not be compelled to relay its track where the road cannot be operated except at a loss and there is no reasonable probability that the road will be operated if the track is replaced. - State ex rel. Little v. Dodge City, M. & T. R. Co., 53 Kan. 329, 36 Pac. 755, 24 L. R. A. 564n.

It is the duty of a railroad carrying large quantities of milk to furnish special cars, with icing facilities therefor, if such cars and facilities are desirable from the view point of the producers, distributers and Baker v. Boston & M. R. Co., ·N. H. —, 65 Atl. 386.

consumers.

[31] Reasonableness of regulations.

[ocr errors]

Presumption of reasonableness of regulations,- see ante, § 23, note [1]. Where an express company made itself a common carrier of money under the South Dakota statute, by holding itself out to carry such money on specified conditions, and the Board of Railroad Commissioners prescribed other and broader conditions, it is no defense to the order of the commission that to obey the order would compel the express company to transact the business at a loss.— Platt v. Le Cocq, 150 Fed. 391.

Railroads carrying live cattle had commonly made a carload rate irrespective of weight and permitted the shipper to crowd into a car as many cattle as he desired. They changed the regulation by prescribing a maximum weight for a carload at the rate quoted, and then charging by the hundred pounds in proportion to such carload rate for any excess.- -Held, that the new regulation is not only not unlawful, but is preferrable. Leonard v. Ch. & A. R. Co., 2 Inters. Com. R. 416, 491, 599, 3 I. C. C. R. 241.

An ordinance requiring railroads crossing certain streets at grade to come to a full stop, is unreasonably discriminatory when it appears that only one road crosses such streets, which are little used, whereas other roads are permitted to cross populous and important streets without stopping. Buffalo v. N. Y. L. E. & W. R. Co., 152 N. Y. 276, 46 N. E. 496, affg. s. c. 6 Misc. (N. Y.) 630, 27 N. Y. Supp. 297.

The question of the reasonableness of a regulation that a street railway shall run cars every 20 minutes from 12 A. M. to 6 A. M. is not to be controlled by considerations of expense to the carrier. It is not a sufficient answer that the operation of cars all night would be unprofitable. The objection should be on the ground that the convenience of passengers does not require it.- Mayor v. Dry Dock, E. B. & B. R. Co., 133 N. Y. 104, 30 N. E. 563.

It is not reasonable regulation to compel a public service corporation to make an exception in favor of some particular class in a community and serve the members of that class at a less sum than it has a right to charge those who are not members thereof.- Rochester & C. Turnpike Co. v. Joel, 41 App. Div. (N. Y.) 43, 58 N. Y. Supp. 346.

In determining whether the earnings of a branch line are sufficient to permit the state to require separate passenger trains thereon, the profits of that branch are not alone to be considered, but the whole business of the various parts of the road operated with that branch as a continuous line.- People v. St. L. A. & T. H. R. Co., 176 Ill. 512, 52 N. E. 292, 35 L. R. A. 656.

A regulation made by a commission may be "unreasonable and unjust " without amounting to a taking of property without due process of law.— Railroad Commission v. Houston & T. C. R. Co., 90 Tex. 340, 38 S. W. 750.

[32] Right of carrier to reasonable return on investment.

[blocks in formation]

Right to earn profit merely incidental,― see ante, § 1, note [4]. Compensation of carriers a payment in the nature of a tax,- see ante, § 1, note [5].

Charters as contracts with the state,- see ante, § 1, note [7]. Franchises as property which cannot be taken away without due process of law,- see ante, § 1, note [8].

Right to charge a reasonable sum as implied from powers given by charter,- see ante, § 1, note [9].

By the act of incorporation of a street railway company such company was made "subject to all the duties, liabilities and restrictions set forth in all general laws now or hereafter in force relating to street railways," etc. At the time of the incorporation of the company an act was in force requiring street railways to carry school children for onehalf fare.-Held, that this act was by general reference incorporated. into the charter of the company, which, having accepted the charter, could not be heard to complain that the carrying of school children at one-half price deprived it of property without due process of law.Interstate R. Co. v. Massachusetts, 207 U. S. 79, 28 Sup. Ct. R. (U. S.) 26, affg. s. c. 187 Mass. 436, 73 N. E. 530.

Even if a state may not compel a railroad to do business at a loss, and conceding that a railroad may insist upon the right to establish such rates as will afford reasonable compensation for the services rendered, yet when it voluntarily establishes local rates for some shipments, it is estopped for resisting the power of the state to enforce the same rates for all.- Alabama & V. R. Co. v. Miss. R. R. Commission, 203 U. S. 496, 27 Sup. Ct. R. (U. S.) 163.

What the company is entitled to demand, in order that it may have just compensation, is a fair return upon the reasonable value of the property at the time it is being used for the public.- San Diego L. Co. v. Jasper, 189 U. S. 439, 23 Sup. Ct. R. (U. S.) 571; San Diego L. Co. v. National City, 174 U. S. 739, 19 Sup. Ct. R. (U. S.) 804, affg.

« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »