3 C. C. A. 347; writ of certiorari refused by Supreme Court, 146 U. S. 364, 36 L. Ed. 1002. See also Parsons v. Chicago & N. W. R. Co., 167 U. S. 447, 453, 42 L. Ed. 231, 234. Commonlaw remedies for extortion are superceded by a statute creating a Commission to determine the question.-Winsor Coal Co. v. Chicago & A. R. Co., 52 Fed. 716, referring to a state statute. Right for damages exists for unlawfully refusing to interchange traffic.-Toledo A. A. & N. M. Ry. Co. v. Penn. Co., 54 Fed. 730, 740, 19 L. R. A. 387, 5 I. C. R. 545, 22 U. S. App. 561. Cannot recover for a violation of the interstate commerce Act in a state court; there is no common law of the United States.-Swift v. Philadelphia & R. R. Co., 58 Fed. 858. Same doctrine as to common law announced same case.-64 Fed. 59. Contra, Murray v. Chicage & N. Y. Ry. Co., 62 Fed. 24; affirmed, 92 Fed. 868, 35 C. C. A. 62, and Kinnavey v. Terminal R. Asso., 81 Fed. 802, 804. See, as to common law, Western Union Telegraph Co. v. Call Publishing Co., 181 U. S. 92, 45 L. Ed. 765, 21 Sup. Ct. 561, where Mr. Justice Brewer says:

"There is no body of federal common law separate and distinct from the common law existing in the several states, in the sense that there is a body of statute law enacted by Congress separate and distinct from the body of statute law enacted by the several states. But it is an entirely different thing to hold that there is no common law in force generally throughout the United States, and the countless multitude of interstate commercial transactions are subject to no rules and burdened by no restrictions other than those expressed in the statutes of Congress. the principles of the common law are operative upon all interstate commercial transactions, except so far as they are modified by congressional enactment."

A joint through rate is not the basis for a local rate in a suit for discrimination.-Parsons v. Chicago & N. W. Ry. Co., 63 Fed. 903; affirmed, 167 U. S. 447, 42 L. Ed. 231, 17 Sup. Ct. 887. The federal courts have exclusive jurisdiction of suits brought under Sections 8 and 9.-Van Patten v. Chicago, M. & St. P. R. Co., 74 Fed. 981. And suits may be brought in any district in which the defendant resides. See also Connor v. Vicksburg, etc., R. Co., 36 Fed. 273, 1

L. R. A. 331. The rates filed and published according to the interstate commerce law are the only legal rates, and the fact that such rates are published is a defense in a court to a suit for damages alleging that such rates are unreasonable.-Van Patten v. Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry. Co., 81 Fed. 545. Rights under the section are assignable.-Edmunds v. Ill. Cent. R. Co., 80 Fed. 78. What a petition under the sections for violating Section 2 should show, and disagreeing with the Swift case, supra, on the question of a common law of the United States.-Kinnavey v. Terminal R. Asso., 81 Fed. 802. There must be an active, not merely a threatened, discrimination as a basis for a suit for damages.-Lehigh V. R. Co. v. Rainey, 112 Fed. 487. The remedy provided by these sections is exclusive and an injunction will not be granted to compel obedience to Section 3.-Central Stock Yards Co. v. L. & N. R. Co., 112 Fed. 823. No limitation being fixed by the Act, the law of the state where suit is brought will govern in that particular.-Ratican v. Terminal R. Asso., 114 Fed. 666. Contra, Carter v. New Orleans & N. E. R. Co., 143 Fed. 99, 74 C. C. A. 293, holding that R. S. U. S. § 1047 applies. That the state law governs seems to be the law. -Chattanooga Foundry & Pipe Works v. Atlanta, 203 U. S. 390, 51 L. Ed. 241, 27 Sup. Ct. 65. Opinion of Commission inadmissible in a suit to enforce its order, validity of its order rests upon the existing facts, whether disclosed to the Commission or not; the election to proceed before the Commission bars a suit before the courts; no appeal is allowed from an order of the Commission granting or refusing reparation; effect of the order when suit brought thereon.-Western N. Y. & Penn. R. Co. v. Penn. Refining Co., 137 Fed. 343, 70 C. C. A. 23; affirmed, without discussing above proposition, Penn. Refining Co. v. Western N. Y. & P. R. Co., 208 U. S. 208, 52 L. Ed. 456, 28 Sup. Ct. 268.

What a plaintiff must show in order to recover.-KnudsenFerguson Fruit Co. v. Mich. Cent. R. Co., 148 Fed. 968, 974; petition for writ of certiorari denied. Must be protest before recovery when rate duly published.-Knudsen-Ferguson Fruit Co. v. Chicago, St. P. M. O. Ry. Co., 149 Fed. 973, 79 C. C. A. 483; petition for writ of certiorari denied, 204 U. S. 670, 51 L. Ed. 672. Carrier may be compelled to produce books

on the trial of a case hereunder.-International Coal Mining Co. v. Penn. R. Co., 152 Fed. 557. When trial is before the court, the report of the Commission upon which the action is based may be received in evidence; Commission's finding prima facie true.-So. Ry. Co. v. St. Louis Hay & Grain Co., 153 Fed. 728, affirming 149 Fed. 609; reversed because the Commission erred in the law applied by it and remanded to send the matter back to the Commission, 214 U. S. 297, 53 L. Ed. 1004, 29 Sup. Ct. 678. A suit for damages for discrimination not alleging that the charges are not in accordance with the published schedules is not one arising under the interstate commerce law. Clement v. L. & N. R. Co., 153 Fed. 979. Can recover in court when full tariff rate is paid and a less rate charged plaintiff's competitors, but cannot recover when only the tariff rate is collected, although such rate is fixed by combination, without first applying to the Commission. -American Union Coal Co. v. Penn. R. Co., 159 Fed. 278. When a bond is given to dissolve an injunction against a rate subsequently declared unlawful, persons paying the illegal rate may intervene and participate in the proceeds to be collected upon the bond.-Tift v. So. Ry. Co., 159 Fed. 555. In a suit for damages in a Circuit Court, the printed and published rates are legal unless declared by the Commission to be illegal. Meeker v. Lehigh V. R. Co., 162 Fed. 354. Remedy by suit or complaint under these sections inadequate.-Macon Grocery Co. v. Atlantic C. L. R. Co., 163 Fed. 738; reversed, Atlantic C. L. R. Co. v. Macon Grocery Co., 166 Fed. 206, 92 C. C. A. 114. Shipper cannot in the absence of a statute recover for discrimination if he has paid no more than a reasonable rate, and when suit is brought under the statute, it is the nature of a suit for a penalty and plaintiff must clearly and distinctly show a violation; cannot recover for failure to publish a tariff without showing that advantage would have been taken of the tariff if it had been published.-Parsons v. Chicago & N. N. W. R. Co., 167 U. S. 447, 42 L. Ed. 231, 17 Sup. Ct. 887. The first proposition above quoted appears inconsistent with the opinion in Western Union Tel. Co. v. Call Printing Co., 181 U. S. 92, 45 L. Ed. 765, 21 Sup. Ct. 561, supra. A shipper cannot recover in a state court for having paid an unreasonable rate prior to a determination by the Interstate Commerce Commission that the rate is unreason

able.-Tex. & Pac. Ry. Co. v. Abilene Cotton Oil Co., 204 U. S. 426, 51 L. Ed. 553, 27 Sup. Ct. 350. The court, however, is not, because of this rule, required to say that a suit in equity to prevent an illegal advance is also forbidden.-So. Ry. Co. v. Tift, 206 U. S. 428, 51 L. Ed. 1125, 27 Sup. Ct. 709. Commission's order set aside and the facts held not to constitute illegal discrimination.-Penn. Refining Co. v. Western N. Y. & P. R. Co., 208 U. S. 208, 52 L. Ed. 456, 28 Sup. Ct. 268. Suit for damages for a violation of the Interstate Commerce Act cannot be maintained in a state court.-Fitzgerald v. Fitzgerald, etc., Construction Co., 41 Neb. 374, 51 N. W. 838; Copp v. L. & N. R. Co., 43 L. Ann. 511, 9 So. 441, 3 I. C. R. 625, 46 Am. & Eng. R. cases 634; Gulf C. & S. F. R. Co. v. Moore, 98 Tex. 302, 83 S. W. 363; Wabash R. Co. v. Sloop, 200 Mo. 198, 98 S. W. 607. But may maintain a suit on the common-law right to have transportation at reasonable rates.-Holliday Milling Co. v. Louisiana & N. W. R. Co., 80 Árk. 536, 98 S. W. 374. Overcharges on an interstate shipment paid prior to the Act not recoverable in a state court.-Gatton v. Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry. Co., 95 Iowa 112, 63 N. W. 589, 28 L. R. A. 556, 5 I. C. R. 474. A judgment for an unjust rate voluntarily paid cannot be recovered.Strough v. New York C. & H. R. R. Co., 87 N. Y. Sup. 30, 92 App. Div. 584; affirmed, 181 N. Y. 533, 73 N. E. 1133. May sue in federal court for damages caused by a violation of Section 2 without prior action by the Commission.-Lyne v. Delaware, L. & W. R. Co., 170 Fed. 847.

Notes of Decisions Rendered Since 1909.

The Commission may award damages.-Arkansas Fuel Co. v. C. M. & St. P. Ry. Co., 16 I. C. C. 95, 98, citing cases. Discussion of section and cases cited.-Hillsdale Coal & Coke Co. v. P. R. Co., 19 I. C. C. 356, 373. The Commission sustained.-P. R. Co. v. Int. Com. Com., 193 Fed. 81, Op. Com. Ct. No. 31, p. 275. Damages awarded on subsequent hearing for discrimination.-Hillsdale Coal & Coke Co. v. P. R. Co., 23 I. C. C. 186. This proceeding involved as complainants other than the Hillsdale Coal Co. See also, as to measure of damages, Hillsdale Coal & Coke Co. v. P. R. Co., 229 Penn. 61, 78 Atl. 28. Statement of items of damage stands like a

bill of particulars in a suit at law.-Mountain Ice Co. v. D. L. & W. R. R. Co., 21 I. C. C. 45, 49. Voluntary reduction of a rate not always followed by an allowance of reparation.— Anadarko Cotton Oil Co. v. A. T. & S. F. Ry. Co., 20 I. C. C. 43, 24 I. C. C. 327. Reparation awarded on the basis of another proceeding.-Victor Mfg. Co. v. S. Ry. Co., 27 I. C. C. 661. Damages awarded for violation of Sec. 6.-Larson Lumber Co. v. G. N. R. Co., 21 I. C. C. 474. The fact of damage as well as the amount must be established.-New Orleans Board of Trade v. Ill. C. R. R. Co., 29 I. C. C. 32, discussing the general question and citing authorities. Reparation does not always follow the reduction of a rate by the Commission.-Maier & Co. v. S. P. Co., 29 I. C. C. 103, 105, and Curry & Whyte Co. v. D. & I. R. R., 30 I. C. C. 1, 14, and cases cited. Form stated for preparing statement of damages when reparation allowed.-Wallingford v. A. T. & S. F. Ry. Co., 30 I. C. C. 19, 21. Mere fact of payment of discriminatory charges not sufficient to authorize an award of damages. Greenbaum v. L. & N. R. Co., 30 I. C. C. 699. Adding freight to price does not alone show damage to purchaser.-Phoenix Printing Co. v. M. K. & T. Ry. Co., 31 I. C. C. 289. Violation of fourth section not alone a sufficient basis for an award of damages.-Nix & Co. v. S. Ry. Co., 31 I. C. C. 145, 150. Damages awarded for discrimination.-Worn v. B. & L. R. R. Co., 32 I. C. C. 58. No damages awarded for failure to furnish instrumentalities to heat car.-Best Co. v. G. N. R. Co., 33 I. C. C. 1. Damages awarded for failure to grant reconsignment.-Rayner & Parker v. L. & N. R. Co., 33 I. C. C. 595. Damages for breach of contract not within jurisdiction of the Commission.-McArthur Bros. Co. v. E. P. & S. W. Co., 34 I. C. C. 30. Damages for failure to accord transit. Brenner Lumber Co. v. M. L. & T. R. Co., 34 I. C. C. 630. Through rate exceeding aggregate of intermediate rates, damages awarded.-McCaull-Dinsmore Co. v. M. P. Ry. Co., 35 I. C. C. 69. Reparation limited to pecuniary loss.Penn. R. Co. v. International Coal Mining Co., 230 U. S. 184, 57 L. Ed. 1446, 33 Sup. Ct. 893, reversing same-styled case, 173 Fed. 1, 97 C. C. A. 383, and discussing the question at some length. Must be prior action by the Commission, when question of unjust discrimination is for determination.— United States v. Pacific & A. Ry. & Nav. Co., 228 U. S. 87, 57