CLASS RATES. See also CLASS AND COMMODITY RATES.
In General: Class rates in central territory are on a distance basis, while
in eastern trunk-line territory they are generally on a group basis in which
distances from producing points to various points of consumption to a
considerable extent are disregarded. Cancellation of Commodity Rates
on Sewer Pipe, 514 (533).
Bathtubs, iron, enameled: Fisher Supply Co. v. Alabama & V. Ry. Co.,
711 (714-717).
Castings, Chromium-iron-nickel alloy, etc., and boxes: General Alloys
Co. v. Akron, C. & Y. Ry. Co., 733.
Facings, foundry: United States Graphite Co. v. Baltimore & O. R. Co.,
742.
Fruits and vegetables, in metal cans in boxes or barrels: Sumter Packing
Co. v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co., 137.
Gum, Bakelite (synthetic): Bakelite Corp. v. Boston & Albany R., 581.
Paper, wrapping, waxed, printed, in rolls, uncrated: White Cross
Bakery v. Baltimore & O. R. Co., 425.
Idaho points north and west of Pocatello: Idaho v. Oregon S. L. R. Co.,
501.
Jacksonville, Fla.: Class Rates to Jacksonville, Fla., 215.
New England Points: Concord Chamber of Commerce v. Boston &
M. R., 183.
Sioux Falls, S. Dak.: Sioux Falls Chamber of Commerce v. Great
Northern Ry. Co., 555.
A transaction between Boston & Maine Railroad and Dwight P. Robinson
& Co., for design and construction of New North Station and other ter-
minal facilities at Boston, Mass., which amounted to an aggregate expendi-
ture of more than $50,000 in one year, found not in violation of the Clay-
ton Antitrust Act, because the chairman of the board of directors of the
railroad had, prior to the ratification of the contract by the carrier's
executive committee, disposed of all his stock in the construction company
and was no longer interested, directly or indirectly, substantially or other-
wise, in the construction company, and such divestment was bona fide.
Codman v. Boston & M. R., 552.
COMBINATION RATES. See also COMBINATION RULE.
No good reason was shown for continuing combination rates on fuller's earth
between points in southwestern and southeastern territories, based on the
river crossings, joint rates having been prescribed on numerous other
commodities. Transcontinental Oil Co. v. Atlanta & St. A. B. Ry. Co.,
322 (326).
COMBINATION RULE. See also COMBINATION RATES.
Combination rates assailed found not applicable, the applicable rates being
those constructed in accordance with the so-called combination rule.
Reparation awarded:
Fisher Lumber Corp. v. Cleveland, C., C. & St. L. Ry. Co., 93.
Lamb Lumber Co. v. Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co., 201.
Atlantic Lumber Co. v. Louisville & N. R. Co., 236.
Lehigh Portland Cement Co. v. Chesapeake & O. Ry. Co., 437.
Lassiter & Co. v. Alabama G. S. R. Co., 512.
COMBINATION RULE-Continued.
Proposed restrictions of the application of the combination rule in construct-
ing combination rates on granite, marble, or stone from points in Georgia,
North Carolina, South Carolina, and Virginia to various interstate des-
tinations, including points in western trunk-line territory and the south-
west were found not justified. Such restrictions would have resulted in
rate increases for which no justification was offered. Combination Rule
on Granite, Marble, or Stone, 346.
The purpose of the combination rule was to prevent double increases in
through rates resulting from the flat increases authorized by General
Order No. 28 of the Director General of Railroads. Id. (346).
The burden of the combination-rule shrinkage should probably not fall
wholly on one carrier whose tariffs make specific reference to the combina-
tion rule while the tariffs of its connections do not, but it does not neces-
sarily follow that to restrict the application of the rule so that deductions
will be made only from factors made subject to the combination rule by
specific tariff provision, when and if there are at least two such factors
applicable to contiguous portions of the through movement, is the proper
method of relief. Id. (347).
Where one commodity factor is made subject to the combination rule by
specific tariff provision, the rule must be applied to all the commodity
factors in constructing the through rate. Id. (347).
Carriers desiring to cancel the combination rule or restrict its application may
not do so by limiting deductions to those factors specifically made subject
to the rule, but they may instead publish either joint or proportional rates
from and to points between which they have knowledge of actual move-
ment or where conditions make future movements reasonably certain,
provided such rates are no higher than the existing combination rates
treated by the combination rule. Id. (348).
Tariffs publishing the separate factors of the combination rate assessed did
not refer to the combination rule, but the tariff governing one factor
stated it was subject to rules published in Boyd's circular, a particular
item of which referred to the combination rule. However, as that provi-
sion applied only to rate factors determined pursuant to that item, and
was not a rule for general application in connection with rates published
in other tariffs, the rates charged were applicable. Moore & Munger .
Atlanta & W. P. R. Co., 389.
Shipments of brick from Springfield, Ill., to Redfield, S. Dak., assessed com-
bination rates reduced by the combination rule, were undercharged where
a higher joint rate subject to an intermediate rule was in effect from St.
Louis, Mo., to which Springfield is directly intermediate. Waiver of
undercharges authorized. Sioux City Brick & Tile Co. v. Chicago & N. W.
The product of intermediate rates treated by a rule which results in some-
thing less than the aggregate is not the aggregate within the meaning of
section 4 of the act. Id. (406).
The publication of rates subject to a combination rule is not to be construed
as a holding out by the carrier that it will absorb more than a rate pub-
lished in a tariff making no reference to the rule, where such rate is less
than the amount of the deduction authorized by the combination rule and
no provisions for situations of this kind are made in the rule. In such a
case the factor is reduced to zero. Lehigh Portland Cement Co. v. Chess-
peake & O. Ry. Co., 437 (438).
COMBINATION RULE-Continued.
Although the commission has expressed disapproval of the combination rule
as a method of rate making, the proposed cancellation of the application
of the combination rule to rates on livestock from certain points in South
Dakota west of Mobridge, S. Dak., to interstate destinations east thereof,
which would result in numerous fourth-section departures, was found not
justified. Rules for Combination Rates on Livestock, 629.
The purpose and effect of the so-called combination rule is to apply certain
general increases to the through combination rates rather than to the sepa-
rate factors. This is accomplished by deducting a specific amount from
each factor and adding the same amount to the sum of the factors thus
obtained. Where a carrier's tariff does not contain a reference to the rule
it is entitled to its full local or proportional rate in making combination
rates and the carrier or carriers publishing the rule must bear the entire
reduction. Id. (630).
COMMODITY RATES. See also CLASS AND COMMODITY RATES.
A group commodity rate was a rate on a specific commodity within the mean-
ing of an intermediate clause, which made the rates subject thereto appli-
cable to intermediate points only where no rate was published on the spe-
cific commodity. Federated Metals Corp. v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 242
(243-244).
Despite the apparent inconsistencies in the commodity rate structure between
points in Idaho north and west of Pocatello and points on defendants' lines
in California Group 1 territory, and points on the Southern Pacific in
Nevada via the Rogerson-Wells cut-off, no sufficient basis was found in
the record for an affirmative finding, inasmuch as rates on all commodities
were assailed but with little or no evidence as to the volume of movement
of any commodity. Rates assailed found not unreasonable or otherwise
unlawful. Idaho v. Oregon S. L. R. Co., 501 (508).
COMMON CONTROL, MANAGEMENT, OR ARRANGEMENT.
The commission's disapproval of proposed changes under which respondent
sought to move traffic over a terminal in which it had a proprietary inter-
est, instead of over protestant's line, did not violate the provisions of sec-
tion 15 (4) of the act, since that terminal was not operated in conjunction
and under a common management or control with respondent, within the
meaning of that section. Absorption of Switching Charges, 129 (132).
A comparison of rates without a showing of values, volume of traffic,
length of hauls, minimum weights, average loadings, and earnings is
of little probative value. Baird Machine Co. v. New York, N. H. &
H. R. Co., 70 (71).
Comparison with rates on various commodities, unsupported by other
facts, was of little value in determining the reasonableness of the rates
on the commodity involved. Fredonia Linseed Oil Works v. Missouri
Pac. R. Co., 151 (153).
A comparison which was predicated on the established minima rather
than the average car loadings was of little probative value. Dennery
v. Houston & Texas Central R. Co., 164 (168).
Where transportation conditions and other essential details were not
shown to be similar, a comparison of rates on collapsible fruit and
vegetable crates with lumber rates was of little evidentiary value.
Owosso Mfg. Co. v. Asherton & Gulf Ry. Co., 219 (222).
COMPARATIVE RATES-Continued.
In General-Continued.
From the mere fact that rates on scrap iron and bituminous coal are the
same between two points it does not follow that the rates on the latter
commodity should be accepted as a standard by which to determine
the reasonableness of rates on scrap iron between two other points.
American Hide & Fur Co. v. Chicago, M., St. P. & P. R. Co., 481 (482).
Commodities:
Baskets and hampers, fruit and vegetable, vs. lumber.
Atchison, T. & S. F. Ry. Co., 133 (135).
Bathtubs, enameled-iron, vs. other enameled-iron plumbers' goods.
Fisher Supply Co. v. Alabama & V. Ry. Co., 711 (716).
Beverage cooling and dispensing outfits vs. refrigerators, wooden water
coolers, etc. Southern Traffic & Audit Asso. v. Missouri-K-T. R.
Co., 361 (365).
Board, wall, fibre, vs. board, wall, plaster. Upson Co. v. Ann Arbor R.
Co., 586 (596).
Board, wall, fibre, vs. Paper, building and roofing, etc. Upson Co. v.
Ann Arbor R. Co., 586 (605).
Brick, common, from the Southwest, vs. commodities in the uniform
brick list. Builders' Asso. of Kansas City v. Chicago, B. & O. R. Co.,
403 (404).
Castings, chromium-nickel alloy, burnt out, new or old and boxes or
pots, annealing or carbonizing, chromium-iron-nickel, new or burnt
out, vs. castings, iron or steel, and boxes or pots, annealing or car-
bonizing, iron or steel, scrap iron, etc. General Alloys Co. v. Akron,
C. & Y. Ry. Co., 733.
Clay, crude, vs. common brick. Pfaltzgraff Pottery Co. v. Pennsylvania
R. Co., 559.
Coal, fine, vs. lump coal. Watab Paper Co. v. Northern Pac. Ry. Co.,
37 (39-40).
Cores, paper-winding, returned, vs. iron and steel pipe; shafts, without
fittings, key leaved or key seated; and other machinery parts.
can Newspaper Publishers Asso. v. Bangor & A. R. Co., 729.
Crane, locomotive, on its own wheels, vs. locomotive on its own wheels.
Brown Florida Lumber Co. v. Louisville & N. R. Co., 440 (441).
Crates, collapsible wooden fruit and vegetable, vs. lumber. Owosso
Mfg. Co. v. Asherton & Gulf Ry. Co., 219 (221-222).
Designs, floral, vs. artificial flowers or foliage. May Co. v. Reading Co.,
211.
Facings, foundry, made from soapstone, hard coal, and coke vs. foundry
facings made from graphite and ground coal. United States Graphite
Co. v. Baltimore & O. R. Co., 742.
Fuller's earth vs. kaolin or china clay, common clay, etc. Transconti-
nental Oil Co. v. Atlanta & St. A. B. Ry., Co., 322 (324).
Glass, window, vs. Bottles, glass. Budge Co. v. Baltimore & O. R. Co.,
399.
Gum, Bakelite (synthetic) vs. rubber, crude. Bakelite Corp. v. Boston
& Albany R., 581 (584).
Insecticide spreader vs. Insecticides. Hercules Glue Co. v. Great North-
ern Ry. Co., 445.
Lead, pig, vs. lead-pipe fittings. Fisher Supply Co. v. Alabama & V.
Ry. Co., 711 (713).
COMPARATIVE RATES-Continued.
Commodities-Continued.
Limestone, rough and dressed, vs. rough and dressed marble, copper
articles, and brick. O'Meara v. Baltimore & O. R. Co., 785.
Machinery, cotton-gin, vs. agricultural implements. Artesia Alfalfa
Growers Asso. v. Atchison, T. & S. F. Ry. Co., 50.
Mica, ground, vs. foundry facings and graphite. United States Graphite
Co. v. Grand Trunk W. Ry. Co., 269.
Oil, china-wood, vs. vegetable oils and lubricating oil. Valentine & Co.
v. Lehigh Valley R. Co., 781 (783, 784).
Oil, linseed, vs. vegetable oils. Fredonia Linseed Oil Works v. Missouri
Pac. R. Co., 151 (152).
Oil, red, vs. packing-house products. Procter & Gamble Co. v. Alabama
G. S. R. Co., 547 (549).
Paper, wrapping, vs. box board and newsprint paper. Equitable Paper
Bag Co. v. New York, N. H. & H. R. Co., 115.
Paper, wrapping, waxed, printed, in rolls, uncrated, vs. paper, wrapping,
waxed, printed, in rolls, crated. White Cross Bakery v. Baltimore &
O. R. Co., 425.
Peanuts, shelled, vs. unshelled. Gordon Candy Co. v. Atlantic Coast
Line R. Co., 563 (564).
Pins, insulator, wooden, vs. lumber. American Cross Arm Co. v. Southern
Ry. Co. 273.
Pipe, sewer, vs. brick. Cancellation of Commodity Rates on Sewer Pipe,
514 (532).
Pipe, wrought-iron, used, vs. oil-well derricks, old rails, and scrap iron.
Shreveport Chamber of Commerce v. Kansas City S. Ry. Co., 737.
Planters, corn and potato, vs. various agricultural implements. Potato
Implement Co. v. Ann Arbor R. Co., 477.
Pulp, sulphite wood, vs. lumber. Watab Paper Co. v. Chicago & N. W.
Ry. Co., 335.
Rice, clean, vs. sugar. Lake Charles Harbor & Term. Dist. v. Brimstone
R. & C. Co., 720.
Rock, ground bituminous asphalt, vs. cement. Quinn Co. v. Atlanta,
B. & A. Ry. Co., 571 (574–576).
Salt, cake, vs. pulp, wood, lime, sulphur, and china clay. Advance Bag
& Paper Co. v. Central R. Co., of N. J., 317.
Sand, sea, or fire, vs. sand, molding. Gleason Works v. New York, N.
H. & H. R. Co., 59 (62).
Slag, roofing, vs. Ordinary slag, crushed stone, silica sand, and sea sand.
Cartier & Sons Co. v. New York, N. H. & H. R. Co., 649.
Ties, railroad, vs. rough lumber, timbers, etc. Arkansas Tie & Timber
Co. v. St. Louis-S. F. Ry. Co., 206.
Tools, oil-well, vs. metal automobile parts, machinery and machines,
etc. Dunn Mfg. Co. v. Atchison, T. & S. F. Ry. Co., 798.
COMPETITION.
In General:
Rates between competitive points, such as Birmingham, Ala., and Athens,
Ga., have their origin in depressed rates reflecting the so-called basing-
point system, under which the rates between competitive points are
relatively lower than rates to, from, and between other points where
such competition does not exist. Globe Superior Corp. v. Southern
Ry. Co., 456 (457).
|