66. Thomas L. Greene, of New York, on behalf of himself and others, against New York Central and Hudson River Railroad Com. pany; Delaware, Lackawanna, and Western Railroad Company; Pennsylvania Railroad Company; Baltimore and Ohio Railroad Company; New York, Lake Erie and Western Railroad Company:

Complaint alleges violation of the act, by placing less than car loads in a higher class than car loads.

Aug. 1, 1887. Complaint filed.

Aug. 20, 1887. Answer filed.

Oct. 25, 1887. Hearing postponed to December 13, 1887, at com. plainant's request.

67. Francis H. Leggett & Co. of the city of New York, against Baltimore and Ohio Railroad Company; Pennsylvania Railroad Company; Delaware, Lackawanna and Western Railroad Company; New York, Lake Erie and Western Railroad Company; New York Central and Hudson River Railroad Company:

Complaint alleges violations of sections 2 and 3 of the act by placing less than car-loads in a higher class than car-loads.

Aug. 1, 1887. Complaint filed.

Aug. 20, 1887. Answers filed.

Oct. 25, 1887. Hearing postponed to December 13, 1887, at com plainant's request.

68. Vermont State Grange of the Patrons of Husbandry against Boston and Lowell Railroad Company; Concord Railroad Company; Northern Railroad Company; Central Vermont Railroad Company; Grand Trunk Railway Company:

Complaint intervenes in cases Nos. 14 and 15, and alleges contravention of sections 1 and 4 of the act:

Aug. 5, 1887. Complaint filed.

Aug. 19-22, 1887. Answers filed.

Sept. 1, 2, 3, 1887. Hearing at Rutland, Vt.

Opinion by Cooley, Chairman. (1 I. C. C. Repts., p. 158.)
Same disposition as of No. 14.

69. Griffith Owens & Co., Bondy Babbitt & Co., Humphrey & Macomber, W. A. Smith, N. S. Wood, W. W. Pitkin, J. G. Pitkin, John Metcalf, Vermont Union Slate Company, W. F. Parker, Charles Harrison against Delaware and Hudson Canal Company.

Complaint alleges unreasonable freight charge on coal and lumber from Whitehall, N. Y., to Fair Haven, Vt.

Aug. 8, 1887. Complaint filed.

Aug. 23, 1887. Answer filed.

Sept. 3, 1887. Satisfactory rates agreed upon, and complaint withdrawn by petitioners.

70. Thomas W. Ayers and Theron E. Fell, doing business at Castle Rock, Oregon, under the firm-name of Ayers & Fell, against Union Pacific Railroad Company, and Oregon Railway and Navigation Company:

Complaint alleges violation of sections 1 and 6 of the act on shipments of wool from Wallula, Oregon.

Aug. 9, 1887. Complaint filed.

Sept. 2-10, 1887. Answers filed.

Oct. 15, 1887. Hearing postponed until after Dec. 5, 1887, on stipulation of counsel for respective parties.

71. New York, Philadelphia and Norfolk Railroad Company against Atlantic Coast Line (comprised of the Seaboard and Roanoke Railroad; Wilmington and Weldon Railroad; Wilming ton, Columbia and Augusta Railroad, etc.) and the Seaboard Air-Line (comprised of the Seaboard and Roanoke Railroad; Raleigh and Gaston Railroad; Raleigh and Augusta Air-Line Railroad, and Carolina Central Railroad): Complaint alleges violation of section 3 of the act.

Aug. 12, 1887. Complaint filed.

Sept. 2, 1887. Answer of Seaboard Air-Line filed.
Oct. 3, 1887. Complaint withdrawn by petitioner.

72. Robert M. Tuttle against Northern Pacific Railroad Company: Complaint alleges free transportation of a passenger who is a judicial officer of the Territory of Dakota.

Sept. 1, 1887. Complaint filed.

Sept. 19, 1887. Demurrer filed.

Nov. 10, 1887. Complaint withdrawn by petitioner.

73. H. F. Ketron against Norfolk aud Western Railroad Company: Complaint alleges excessive freight charge; detention of freight, with unnecessary length of haul.

Sept. 3, 1887. Complaint filed.

Sept. 15, 1887. Answer filed.

Oct. 27, 1887. Hearing indefinitely postponed, pending proposed settlement.

(4. Business Men's Association of the State of Minnesota against Chi cago and Northwestern Railway Company:

Complaint alleges violation of sections 1 and 3 of the act.

Sept. 3, 1887. Complaint filed.

Sept. 22, 1887. Answer filed.

Nov. 14, 1887. Hearing postponed indefinitely on request of pe titioner.

75. Business Men's Association of the State of Minnesota against Chicago, Saint Paul, Minneapolis and Omaha Railroad Company: Complaint alleges violation of sections 1 and 3 of the act.

Sept. 3, 1887. Complaint filed.
Sept. 30, 1887. Answer filed.

Nov. 14, 1887. Hearing postponed indefinitely on request of petitioner.

76. Manufacturers' and Jobbers' Union, of Mankato, Minn., against Minneapolis and St. Louis Railway Company :

Complaint alleges discrimination in rates against Mankato and points on defendant's branch line, the Wisconsin, Minnesota and Pacific Railroad west of Waterville, in favor of Red Wing and points on same line east of Waterville, on freight from Chicago carried over its main line and connections to Waterville, and thence over said branch line to destination, Mankato being nearer Chicago than Red Wing. Also alleges excessive rates to Mankato as compared with those to Minneapolis.

Sept. 5, 1887. Complaint filed.

Sept. 16, 1887. Case heard at Saint Paul, Minn. September 16, 1887, by consent of parties, without filing formal answer. Report by Bragg, Commissioner. (1 I. C. C. Repts., p. 227). The defendant having reduced its rates after the trial to the sum asked by the peition, no further proceedings considered necessary.

77. James C. Savery & Co., doing business under the name of the American Emigrant Company, against New York Central and Hudson River Railroad Company; New York, West Shore and Buffalo Railway Company; New York, Ontario and Western Railway Company; New York, Lake Erie and Western Railroad Company; Delaware, Lackawanna and Western Railroad Company; Pennsylvania Railroad Company; Baltimore and Ohio Railroad Company:

Complaint alleges violation of sections 1, 2, and 3 in the transportation of emigrants.

Sept. 5, 1887. Complaint filed.
Oct. 1-31, 1887. Answers filed.

78. John D. Heck and L. J. A Petree against East Tennessee, Vir ginia and Georgia Railway Company; Knoxville and Ohio Railroad Company; Richmond and Danville Railroad Com pany; Richmond and West Point Terminal and Warehouse Company; Coal Creek and New River Railroad Company: Complaint alleges undue and unreasonable preferences to Coal Creek Mining and Manufacturing Company and refusal to transport complainants' coal.

Sept. 8, 1887. Complaiut filed.

Sept. 21-27, 1887. Answers filed.

Oct. 31, 1887. Case assigned for hearing December 9, 1887.

79. Lopez, Dunbar's Sons & Co. against Louisville and Nashville Railroad Company:

Complaint alleges unjust discrimination on pails from Cincinnati to Biloxi, Miss., as compared with the rate to New Or leans, 80 miles farther; also violation of section 4.

Sept. 22, 1887. Complaint filed.

Oct. 13, 1887. Answer filed.

Nov. 3, 1887. Replication filed.

Nov. 16, 1887. Hearing.

Dec. 1, 1887. Under advisement by the Commission.

80. Raymond Bros. & Co. against Burlington and Missouri River Railroad and its owner the Chicago, Burlington and Quincy Railroad Company; Denver and Rio Grande Railway Company; Rio Grande Western Railway Company; Sourthern Pacific Company:

Complaint alleges violation of sections 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, and 7 of the act, in the transportation of canned goods from San Francisco to Lincoln, Nebr.

Sept. 22, 1887. Complaint filed.

Oct. 11-19, 1887. Answers filed. (See Nos. 43, 82, 94, 95, 96.)

81. William C. Scofield, Daniel Shurmer, John Teagle, and Charles W. Scofield, partners, under the firm name and style of Scofield, Shurmer & Teagle; James R. Timmins and Andrew R. Timmins, partners, under the name and style of J. R. Timmins & Co.; Christian J. Werwage, doing business under the name and style of The Manufacturers' Oil Company; John W. Fawcett and Thomas F. Wright, partners, under the name and style of J. W. Fawcett & Co.; Alfred Whitaker, doing business under the uame and style of The Brooks Oil Company; William F. Vliet, Willard L. Nutt, and Martin P. Case, partners, under the name and style of Vliet, Nutt & Co.; W. Carroll Lawrence, Felix Burgert, Henry C. Meyers, and August E. Schade, partners, under the name and st、lé of The Merchants' Oil Company; The Excelsior Refining Company, a corporation organized under the laws of Ohio; The Globe Oil Company, a corporation organized under the laws of Ohio; The Cleveland Refining Company, a corporation organized under the laws of Ohio; Lewis C. Carran, doing business under the name and style of L. C. Carran & Co., against Lake Shore and Michigan Southern Railway Company:

Complaint alleges excessive, unjust, and unreasonable rates on petroleum in less than car-loads as compared with carloads, and in car-loads as compared with tank cars, shipped from Cleveland to points named; insufficient floor capacity of cars; refusal to furnish tank cars; allowance of rebate to shippers in tank cars of cent per mile for each car, which rebate, with the less charge for transportation in tank cars than in barrels, constitutes undue and unreasonable prejudice and disadvantage to said traffic in barrels; dis crimination in favor of Standard Oil Company.

Sept. 27, 1887. Complaint filed.

Oct. 17, 1887. Answer filed.

Nov. 12, 1887. Hearing indefinitely postponed on stipulation of counsel for respective parties.

82. Plumner, Perry & Co. against Union Pacific Railway Company; Southern Pacific Railway Company:

Complaint alleges violation of sections 1, 2, 3, 6, and 7 of the act in the transportation of canned goods from San Francisco to Lincoln, Nebr.

Oct. 3, 1887. Complaint filed.

Oct. 24 to Nov. 10. 1887. Answers filed. (See Nos. 43, 80, 94, 95, 96.)

83. John H. Martin and M. H. Martin against Southern Pacific Company; Central Pacific Railway Company; Union Pacific Railway Company:

Complaint alleges violation of section 4 of the act in charging a greater sum on the lik kind of property from San Francisco to Denver than from San Francisco to Kansas City and Omaha.

Oct. 4, 1887. Complaint filed.

Oct 24 to Nov. 10, 1887. Answers filed.

Nov. 11, 1887. Case assigned for hearing December 16, 1887.

84. W. B. Farrar & Co. against East Tennessee, Virginia, and Georgia Railway Company; Norfolk and Western Railroad Company: Complaint alleges excessive freight rates on lumber.

Oct. 12, 1887. Complaint filed.

Nov. 2 to 28, 1887. Answers filed.

85. James Pyle & Sons against East Tennessee, Virginia and Georgia Railway Company:

Complaint alleges discrimination, and undue and unreasonable disadvantage in the classification of " Pearline."

Oct. 14, 1887. Complaint filed.

Nov. 2, 1887. Answer filed.

Nov. 11, 1887. Case assigned for hearing December 8, 1887.

86. T. J. Reynolds against Western New York and Pennsylvania Rail. road Company:

Complaint alleges violation of sections 1 and of the act in the transportation of railroad ties.

Oct. 17, 1887. Complaint filed.

Nov. 5, 1887. Answer filed.

Nov. 11, 1887. Case assigned for hearing December 7, 1887.