Изображения страниц
PDF
EPUB

TANK CARS.

Scofield et al. v. Lake Shore and Michigan Southern R'y Co., 90.
In re Relative Tank and Barrel Rates on Oil, 365.

Michigan Congress Water Co. v. Chicago and Grand Trunk R'y
Co., 594.

See PETROLEUM.

TARIFFS.

PREPARATION OF.-The commission prefers to permit carriers to work
out for themselves all tariff details, and accords a reasonable time
for that purpose.

Martin v. Southern Pacific Co. et al. 1.

SPECIAL.

In re Tariffs Transcontinental Lines, 324.

FILING AND THE PUBLICATION OF.-Reduction of passenger rates without
consent of connecting lines over which tickets are sold, and without
filing schedules thereof with the commission. Held, to be in viola-
tion of Section Six, of the Act to Regulate Commerce.

In re Passenger Tariffs and Rate Wars, 513.

Methods generally adopted by carriers in the preparation and publi-
cation of rate sheets, if in substantial compliance with the law, and
sufficient for purposes of public information, while not necessarily
to be accepted by the Commission as a standard, may be acquiesced
in, until a better mode can be substituted.

In re Passenger Tariffs, 649.

New individual or joint passenger tariffs must be posted at stations
to which they apply, and tickets can legally be sold on combinations
of initial or terminal locals therewith.-Ib.

CIRCULAR RELATING TO CHANGES IN JOINT TARIFFS.

In re Joint Tariffs, Circular, 656.

IMPLY THROUGH RATES.

THROUGH LINES.

Parkhurst & Co. v. Pennsylvania R. R. Co. et al., 131.
Nicolai v. Pennsylvania R. R. Co. et al., 131.

THROUGH RATES.

RATE PER TON PER MILE.

Business Men's Association v. Chicago, St. Paul, Minneapolis and
Omaha R'y Co., 52.

Business Men's Association of the State of Minnesota v. Chicago
and Northwestern R'y Co., 73.

THROUGH AND CONTINUOUS LINES IMPLY.

Parkhurst and Co. v. Pennsylvania R. R. Co. et al. 131.
Nicolai v. Pennsylvania R. Ř. Co. et al., 131.

FROM GROUPED STATIONS.

Rend v. Chicago and North Western R'y Co., 540.

WHAT ARE.-A rate is none the less a through rate when freight is
shipped upon a through bill of lading because the initial carrier
charges its local rate as part of the total rate, and the remaining
lines charged an agreed rate made by percentages.

Chamber of Commerce of the City of Milwaukee v. Flint and Pere
Marquette R. R. Co. et al., 553.

When a combined rate, evidenced by a through bill of lading has every
substantial constituent of a through rate it is not necessary that it
should be formerly quoted by one of the carriers to another who is
engaged in the making of it, in order to constitute it a through rate.
Names are nothing in such a transaction; the law looks at the ele-
ments and substance of the transaction itself.-Ib.

Through rates as such discussed and defined.—Ib.

WHEN NOT ILLEGAL.-Through rates are not necessarily illegal, which
when divided between carriers give them less than their local rates,
provided that the through rate itself is not less than some one of
the locals, or unjustly discriminating against individuals or localities
or so low as to burden other business with part of the cost of the
business upon which it is imposed.

Lippman & Co. v. Illinois Central R. R. Co., 584.

See COMBINATION RATES; REASONABLE RATES; UNJUST DISCRIMI-
NATION; WATER AND RAIL LINES.

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

COMMISSION ON THE SALE OF.

Report of Interstate Commerce Commission, 467.
In re Passenger Tariffs and Rate Wars, 513.

MILEAGE, EXCURSION AND COMMUTATION.

In re Passenger Tariffs, 649.

See MILEAGE TICKETS; TARIFFS; ACTS TO REGULATE COMMERCE.

UNIFORM CLASSIFICATION.

See REPORT OF INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION; CLASSIFICATION.

UNJUST DISCRIMINATION.

COMBINATION RATES.-Rates obtained by combination which are lower
than tariff rates for the same point are unjust and illegal.

Martin v. Southern Pacific Co. et al., 1.

BETWEEN SMALL AND LARGE TOWNS.-Trade centers or large commer-
cial towns are not, as a matter of right, entitled to have more
favorable rates than the smaller towns for which they form distribut-
ing centers; and if carriers shall give to such smaller towns rates as
favorable as to the larger the Commission will not interfere.

Martin et al. v. Chicago, Burlington and Quincy R. R. Co.
et al., 25.

The principles laid down in the case of Crews v. Richmond and Dan-
ville R. R. Co. (1 I. C. C. Rep., 401), restated and reaffirmed.

TRANSPORTATION IN CARS OF OTHER COMPANIES.-The law does not
forbid a carrier from obtaining cars for the transportation of freight
over its line from other carriers, or car furnishing companies, but in
every such instance the rates of freight must be exactly the same
and none other, as they would be if such cars were owned by the
carrier so using them.

Scofield et al. v. Lake Shore and Michigan Southern R'y Co., 90.
TRANSPORTATION IN CARS BELONGING TO THE SHIPPER.-The law does
not forbid a carrier from obtaining cars from a shipper for the trans-
portation of such shipper's freight over its line, but in every such
instance, after deducting a reasonable rent published in the tariffs
as part of the rate and made by the carrier to the shippers for the
use of such cars, the rates must be exactly the same and none other
as upon freight transported in the same service in the carrier's own
cars.-Ib.

MILK TRANSPORTATION.-The existing arrangement by which the same
rate is charged for the transportation of milk from all points
reached by the regular daily milk trains of the defendant roads
found to be not illegal, and on the whole to be the best system that
can be provided for the general good of all interested parties.

Howell et al. v. New York, Lake Erie and Western R'y Co. et al.,
272.

BY SPECIAL TARIFFS.-Discriminations are made and undue advantages
are given by the special tariffs in question, in giving different rates
to places named and those not named to manufactured articles
named and to those not named; to jobbers at places named and
those not named; to manufacturers and to jobbers and other
dealers.

In re Tariffs of Transcontinental Lines, 324.

PASSENGER CLASSES.-There is nothing illegal or wrongful in a railroad
company making a rate for emigrants as a class, and declining to
give the same rate to others for whom different accommodations
are furnished.

Savery & Co. v. New York Central and Hudson River R. R. Co.
et al., 338.

FREE TRANSPORTATION.-The offense under Section two of the Act to
Regulate Commerce of giving free transportation to an individual,
consists in the charging, demanding, collecting or receiving, by the
carrier from some other person or persons a compensation for a like
service when none is contemporaneously charged or received from
the person thus transported free.

Griffee v. Burlington and Missouri River R. R. Co. in Neb., 301.
Free transportation issued in the form of an annual pass to a person
not in the regular and stated service of the carrier nor receiving any
wages or salary under a contract of employment but requested by
him as compensation for throwing in his way what business he con-
veniently could, Held, to be illegal.

Slater v. Northern Pacific R. R. Co., 359.

TRANSPORTATION OF PETROLEUM OIL.-In cases against carriers who
were charged with discriminating unjustly in their rates as against
those shipping petroleum and its products in barrels in favor of
those who shipped in tank cars, the evidence among other things
showed that in the territory served by the defendants the shipment
in barrels was most dangerous and also that when shipment was in

tanks there is greater likelihood of return loads. Differences in
rates made by the carriers was considerable; the Commission
equalized this, but still permitted a charge for the weight of the
barrel. In the same cases it was incidentally made to appear that
on the Pennsylvania system of roads some of the conditions affect-
ing rates on this traffic were the reverse of those above stated, and
the rates had theretofore been made the same by quantity whether
the shipments were in tanks or in barrels. On the decision above re-
ferred to being made the rates on barrel oil were raised by the man-
agers of the Pennsylvania system so as to include a charge for the
weight of the barrel. This was claimed to be done in order to come
into conformity with the action of the Commission. Held, That
the action was unwarranted. A decision on facts does not establish
a principle to govern where the facts are different, and no facts
which had been laid before the Commission would have authorized
a ruling raising the rates on the Pennsylvania Roads, on barrel oil,
either absolutely or relatively.

In re Relative Tank and Barrel Rates on Oil, 365.

In arriving at what is a just and reasonable rate on oil transported
by a carrier on a short local line having but a small volume of busi-
ness, where the cost of transportation is exceptionally great the
fact that an independent pipe line from Titusville to Buffalo trans-
ports oil between these points at lower rates than the railroad com-
pany constitutes no just reason why the railroad company should be
required to reduce its rates to those of the pipe line.

Rice, Robinson & Witherop v. Western New York and Pennsyl-
vania R. R. Co., 389.

The charge of unjust discrimination is not sustained by the evidence
in this case.-Ib.

TICKET BROKERS.-The employment of ticket brokers and scalpers for
the sale of railroad tickets placed in their hands to be disposed of at
reduced rates under the pretense of paying commissions thereon.
Held, illegal.

In re Passenger Tariffs and Rate Wars, 513.

Rates obtained from ticket brokers lower than those offered at the
regular offices of the company effect unjust discrimination.-Ib.

LOCAL AND THROUGH RATES.-Through rates are not necessarily illegal
which, when divided between carriers, give them less than their
local rates, provided that the through rate itself is not less than some
one of the locals, or unjustly discriminating against individuals or
localities or so low as to burden other business with part of the
cost of the business upon which it is imposed.

Lippman & Co. v. Illinois Central R. R. Co., 584.

RATES ON BRANCH LINES.-The service may be rendered under such dis-
similar circumstances as to make it lawful to charge more for the
same distance on one line or branch line than on another line or
branch of the same road.

Logan et al. v. Chicago and Northwestern R'y Co., 604.

A railway company while long maintaining a rate without the
presence of competition on other than equal terms is making evi-
dence that such rate is not too low.-Ib.

JOINT WATER AND RAIL LINES.-The fact that a railroad company makes
joint arrangements with carriers by water for through carriage at
through rates for one of its branch roads, will not charge it with

unjust discrimination for refusing to make identical arrangements
on other parts of its system, when it appears that from such other
parts of its system it actually makes through arrangements by more
direct route and at the same rate which are presumtively of equal
convenience to shippers.

In re Joint Rail and Water Lines, 645.

PARTY AND PASSENGER CAR LOAD RATE.-Party rates and passenger car
load rates lower than contemporaneous rates for single passengers
constitute unjust discrimination between persons entitled to trans-
portation at equal rates, and are, therefore, illegal.

In re Passenger Tariffs, 649.

See ACT TO REGULATE COMMERCE; INTERSTATE COMMERCE; CLAS-
SIFICATION; PREFERENCE AND ADVANTAGE; UNDERBILLING.

UNDERBILLING.

Report of Interstate Commerce Commission, 410.

WATER AND RAIL LINES.

JOINT ARRANGEMENTS.-The Act to Regulate Commerce does not em-
power the Commission to compel railroad companies to enter into
joint arrangements with carrier by water for through carriage at
through rates.

In re Joint Water and Rail Lines, 645.

WATER COMPETITION.

EXCEPTIONAL CONDITIONS.

Business Men's Association of the State of, Minnesota v. Chicago,
St. Paul, Minneapolis and Omaha R'y Co., 52.

In re Tariffs of Transcontinental Lines, 324.

Report of Interstate Commerce Commission, 15, 31.

See LONG AND SHORT HAUL CLAUSE.

WITNESSES.

See EVIDENCE.

« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »