MINIMUM WEIGHT-Continued.
In General-Continued.
Where mixed carloads of similar commodities were involved and the
record failed to show, as to specific carloads, precisely what articles
were included in the mixture, or in what proportions, reasonable
loadings were determined by the evidence as to the weights per cubic
foot of the various commodities. Fisher Supply Co. v. Alabama &
V. Ry. Co., 711 (717).
Baskets and hampers, vegetable: As the fruit and vegetable baskets
and hampers were not shown to load to the minimum weight requested
that minimum was not justified and the request for that minimum
subject to the lumber rates, was interpreted to mean that com-
plainants desired a charge per car not in excess of that resulting
from the lumber rate applied to the minimum weight sought. Ver-
halen Co. v. Atchison, T. & S. F. Ry. Co., 133 (135).
Bathtubs: Reasonable rates on enameled-iron bathtubs, subject to
minima dependent on the mixture, prescribed for the future and
reparation awarded based on the revised fourth-class rates, observ-
ing in connection with each shipment the minimum weight applicable
under the rate charged. Fisher Supply Co. v. Alabama & V. Ry.
Co., 711.
Graphite: Despite complainant's objection to the minimum weight
prescribed in 147 I. C. C. 646 in connection with the sixth-class rate
on crude graphite in barrels or bags in official territory, the findings
therein were affirmed, since graphite is a fairly high-grade commodity
in comparison with other commodities for which sixth class has been
prescribed and would not be entitled to so low a basis of rates except
in conjunction with a rather high minimum weight. United States
Graphite Co. v. Baltimore & O. R. Co., 742.
Lime and lime products: Rates on lime and lime products from Sloan,
Nev., to California points found not unreasonable as compared with
rates from Puntenney and Nelson, Ariz., and California producing
points, based on a lower minimum weight, it not having been shown
that lime would not move in unit quantities greater than the minimum
weight from the latter points. U. S. Lime Products Corp. v. Atchison,
T. & S. F. Ry. Co., 159.
It is well settled that shippers are charged with knowledge of the tariffs
and that misinformation in respect thereof by a carrier does not justify
the collection of less than the applicable rate. Holmes Coal Co. v. Chesa-
peake & O. Ry. Co., 188 (189).
MISROUTING. See also ROUTES AND ROUTING.
As the applicable rate was the same in amount over both routes, there was
no misrouting where the unrouted shipment was forwarded by the carrier
over the longer of two routes. Hardaway Contracting Co. v. Atlantic
Coast Line R. Co., 90 (91).
Although shipments were found misrouted, no damage resulted therefrom
as the same rate applied over the several routes of movement. Holmes
Coal Co. v. Chesapeake & O. Ry. Co., 188 (189).
157 I. C. C.
Although shipper's routing in the bills of lading did not specify the junction
point via which the alleged lower rate applied, carriers could not be charged
with misrouting since, according to his written statement to the carrier's
agent, the shipper had requested shipment via the junction point used
because of the better schedule and the semiperishable nature of the com-
modity. Calamari Co. v. Missouri Pac. R. Co., 366 (367).
A bill of lading, signed or accepted by the shipper and showing on its face a
certain route, may be taken as strong presumptive evidence that the shipper
designated the routing, and while this presumption may be rebutted, com-
plainant's evidence failed to show that the routing in the bill of lading over
an interstate route on grass seed from Roseau, Minn., to Winona, Minn.,
was inserted by the carrier, but to the contrary such evidence was con-
troverted in every essential detail. Therefore, carriers could not be
charged with misrouting. Northern Field Seed Co. v. Great Northern
Ry. Co., 408.
Subsequent to the date when the local rate from Sandale, Ind., to Rockport,
Ind., was made subject to the combination rule, shipments of molding
sand routed by complainant over the "Southern" to Cleveland, Tenn.,
which moved via Evansville, Ind., were misrouted since a lower rate there-
after applied in connection with the Southern via Rockport. Reparation
awarded. Dixie Foundry Co. v. Evansville & O. V. Ry. Co., 413 (414).
With quarantine regulations of the Federal Government in effect at the time
of movement, and with the nearest inspector located at St. Louis, Mo.,
carrier could not be charged with misrouting in sending a shipment via St.
Louis in accordance with shipper's original routing instructions, in the
absence of evidence establishing either the date of instructions diverting
shipment through Memphis, Tenn., where a lower rate prevailed, or the
location of the car at the time. Dawson Produce Co. v. Florida East Coast
Ry. Co., 647.
MISSISSIPPI RIVER CROSSINGS.
Finding in 155 I. C. C. 247 modified so as to eliminate therefrom rates between
various points located on the Mississippi River, similar modifications
having been made in 139 I. C. C. 535. Sand, Gravel, Crushed Stone, and
Shells, 498 (499).
MISTAKES. See ERRORS AND MISTAKES.
MIXED CARLOADS.
In General:
Where lower charges resulted on shipments of cement, plaster board,
and plaster in mixed carloads, by treating each shipment as two sepa-
rate carloads and applying the carload rate and minimum on the
cement, plaster, and dunnage, and the carload rate and minimum on
the plaster board, where the latter rate produced lower charges than
the less-than-carload rate, charges so computed were applicable under
rule 10 of the classification and shipments assessed the higher joint
rate were overcharged. Refund of overcharges directed. Texas
Cement Plaster Co. v. Missouri-K-T. R. Co of Tex., 181.
MIXED CARLOADS-Continued.
In General-Continued.
In determining the reasonableness of the rate on mixed carloads of sim-
ilar articles of different classification ratings the general rule govern-
ing mixed carloads, that the rate for the highest-rated article governs,
was followed, although neither the separate value of the highest rated
articles nor what proportion they constituted of the several shipments
was shown; for to condemn the rate assailed under such circumstances
would have been virtually to condemn the rating of the articles in
question in straight carloads, despite the absence of any evidence that
such rating was in fact excessive. Fisher Supply Co. v. Alabama & V.
Ry. Co., 711 (713–714).
Bathtubs, iron, enameled, and other enameled-iron plumbers' goods:
Fisher Supply Co. v. Alabama & V. Ry. Co., 711 (714–717).
Butter and eggs: Willow Springs Creamery Co. v. Illinois Central R.
Co., 495.
Cement, plaster board, and plaster: Texas Cement Plaster Co. v. Mis-
souri-K.-T. R. Co. of Tex., 181.
Flour, with grain and grain products: El Campo Rice Milling Co. v.
Atchison, T. & S. F. Ry. Co., 63.
Hides, green or green salted, pelts, skins, grease, and tallow: Hastings
Chamber of Commerce v. Chicago & N. W. Ry. Co., 653.
Lead, ingot, sheet lead in rolls, lead pipe, lead-pipe fittings, and lead
solder: Fisher Supply Co. v. Alabama & V. Ry. Co., 711 (713).
Plaster and plaster products: Upson Co. v. Ann Arbor R. Co., 586 (612).
Saddle trees, saddlery hardware, wooden and paper patterns, and “iron
forms": Flor Co. v. Missouri-K.-T. R. Co., 208.
Salt and sulphurized salt: Southwest Utility Ice Co. v. Atchison, T. &
S. F. Ry. Co., 146.
Store fixtures: Jackson Traffic Bureau v. Alabama G. S. R. Co., 327.
MOTOR-TRUCK COMPETITION. See COMPETITION.
Charges from West Allis, Wis., to Jersey City, N. J., based on the actual
weight of lading for the two end cars and the minimum weight of the
center car, found unreasonable on an electric traveling crane, which was
subject to rule 34 and was loaded on three flat cars, to the extent that they
exceeded charges based on the actual weight, as that weight was in excess
of the sum of the minima of the cars used, and also the minimum which
would have resulted from the application of the rule on commodities not
subject to rule 34 or the rule subsequently established on commodities
subject to that rule. Reparation awarded. Ryerson & Son v. Chicago,
M. & St. P. Ry. Co., 8.
NARROW-GAGE LINES.
As transportation service over the shorter route involved a haul of about 100
miles over a narrow-gage line, necessitating a transfer of lading at either
end, it was clear that the rates between points in Idaho and Nevada and
between Idaho points and Los Angeles, Calif., over this route should be
higher than over the longer route based on a straight distance scale. Rates
assailed found not unreasonable or otherwise unlawful. Idaho v. Oregon
S. L. R. Co., 501 (510).
NEW AND SECONDHAND ARTICLES.
It is not unusual to apply rates one class lower than the classification basis
on used returned articles. American Newspaper Publishers Asso. v.
Bangor & A. R. Co., 729 (732).
The fact that burnt-out articles are broken up and remelted is not alone a
sufficient justification for a lower rating on such articles than on the new
articles, although of course reasonable ratings on burnt-out articles should
not exceed those on new. General Alloys Co. v. Akron, C. & Y. Ry. Co.,
733 (736).
OPERATING AND TRANSPORTATION CONDITIONS.
The commission has recognized the unusual transportation conditions exist-
ing in New Mexico and Texas differential territory, and in consideration
of such conditions has prescribed arbitrary amounts to be added to the
rates for hauls within those sections. Artesia Alfalfa Growers Asso. v.
Atchison, T. & S. F. Ry. Co., 50 (51).
Transportation conditions throughout Arkansas, western Louisiana, Okla-
homa, and eastern Texas are so similar as to warrant substantially the
same level of rates. Southwest Utility Ice Co. v. Atchison, T. & S. F. Ry.
Co., 146 (149).
The commission has found upon comprehensive records that transportation
conditions are substantially uniform throughout the Southwest. Skelly
Oil Co. v. Atchison, T. & S. F. Ry. Co., 410 (411).
Transportation conditions between Boston, Mass., or New London, Conn.,
and destinations on the New York, New Haven & Hartford in Massa-
chusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, and New York do not differ in any
material respect from those between Providence, R. I., and the same points.
Blanchard Lumber Co. v. New York, N. H. & H. R. Co., 643.
Transportations conditions and circumstances attending movements from
Colorado and from Kansas to Evansville, Ind., are practically identical,
and different bases of rates are not warranted.
Mfg. Co. v. Atchison, T. & S. F. Ry. Co., 724 (727).
OPERATING AND TRANSPORTATION COSTS.
Because of the high cost of operation over the Rogerson-Wells cut-off, the
carriers involved were found entitled to rates based on a constructive
mileage which included 150 per cent of the actual mileage over the cut-off
proper, between Rogerson, Idaho, and Wells, Nev. Idaho v. Oregon
S. L. R. Co., 501 (505).
OUTBOUND TRAFFIC. See INBOUND AND OUTBOUND.
OUT-OF-LINE AND BACK HAUL.
Where, due to an error on the part of carrier's agent in transmitting recon-
signment orders, a back haul had been made of which complainant had not
been advised and therefore the through rate had not been protected, the ap-
plicable combination rates assessed were not unreasonable or otherwise
unlawful, since the complainant gave no instructions to hold the shipment
in the event the through rate could not be applied; nor did carrier's
reconsignment tariffs contain a provision obligating them to notify a
shipper where reconsignment at the through rate could not be effected.
Chandler-Davis Co. v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co., 749.
OVERCHARGES.
Commodities:
Cement: Lehigh Portland Cement Co. v. Chespeake & O. Ry. Co., 437.
Cement, plaster board, and plaster: Texas Cement Plaster Co. v.
Missouri-K.-T. R. Co. of Tex., 181.
OVERCHARGES-Continued.
Commodities-Continued.
Lumber: Peabody Lumber Co. v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 56 (57).
Tanks, empty, storage: Skelly Oil Co. v. Atchison, T. & S. F. Ry.
Co., 410.
Tools, oil-well: Dunn Mfg. Co. v. Atchison, T. & S. F. Ry. Co., 798.
See CONTAINERS AND PACKING.
The all-rail rate on canned salmon from Pacific-coast territory to the South-
east was purposely made lower than a normal rate in an attempt to win
back a portion of the traffic formerly moving over the transcontinental
all-rail routes, the bulk of which now moves via the Panama Canal.
Luckenbach S. S. Co. v. Southern Ry. Co., 752 (755–756).
Continuance of the water service between Fort Bragg and other California
ports authorized on application under section 5 of the interstate commerce
act as amended by section 11 of the Panama Canal act, all rates, fares,
schedules and regulations of the steamship company to be established by
filing and posting as required by the act. Application of Union Lumber
Co., 376.
A comparison with a rate under which no traffic moves is of little value.
Valentine & Co. v. Lehigh Valley R. Co., 781 (783).
The shipper having paid the freight charges and deducted them from the
invoices was entitled to bring the action and to any award of reparation
found warranted, in the absence of objection by the party bearing the
charges or the beignning of an action by such party. However, a copy of
a written instrument which was dated after the complaint was filed and
purported to assign to the complainant all choses in action which had
accrued or might thereafter accrue to the Illinois Glass Company, based
on shipments of glass bottles, was insufficient evidence to establish the
complainant's right to reparation on shipments on which that company
paid or bore the charges. Creomulsion Co. v. Southern Ry. Co., 95 (99).
Where an unreasonable joint rate has been collected, the liability of the
carriers made parties defendant in a complaint is joint and several and
reparation may be awarded although all of the carriers which participated
in the transportation have not been named parties defendant. Ciresi
Fruit Co. v. Chicago & N. W. Ry. Co., 233 (234).
The shipper, by assigning to complainant its interest, if any, in freight
charges on goods sold by it, not only estopped itself from asserting any
claim in respect to such charges, but relieved complainant of the neces-
sity of making it a party to any proceeding in connection therewith.
Sioux City Brick & Tile Co. v. Chicago & N. W. Ry. Co., 405 (407).
Although the seller, at the order of complainant, consigned goods which it
had sold to the latter to a third party complainant was the real party in
interest and the real consignor, since the consignee paid the freight charges
on its behalf and deducted them from complainant's invoices. Id. (407).
As it did not affirmatively appear whether certain complainants were
corporations, firms, or individuals, the Rule V statements were to be
accompanied with affidavits stating whether complainants were corpora-
tions, firms, individuals, or partnerships; and if partnerships, the names
of the partners were to be given. Brannon Coal Co. v. Southern Ry. Co.,
486 (488).
|