Page images
PDF
EPUB

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.

Southwestern Broom

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.

PACKING.

PANAMA CANAL.

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).

PANAMA CANAL ACT.

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.

PAPER RATES.

A comparison with a rate under which no traffic moves is of little value.
Valentine & Co. v. Lehigh Valley R. Co., 781 (783).

PARTIES.

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).

PAST AND FUTURE RATES.

Rates assailed found not unreasonable in the past but for the future found
unreasonable to the extent indicated:

Sumter Packing Co. v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co., 137.
Obermoller v. Atchison, T. & S. F. Ry. Co., 430.

United States Graphite Co. v. Canadian Pac. Ry. Co., 443 (444)
Cancellation of Commodity Rates on Sewer Pipe, 514 (534).

The rate sought was part of the general revision of rates on brick in 107
I. C. C. 702, but no finding was made therein as to the past and the record
in the case under consideration did not warrant giving a retroactive effect
to the rates prescribed in that case. Sioux City Brick & Tile Co. v.
Chicago & N. W. Ry. Co., 405 (406–407).

Reparation was awarded, based on a finding in 140 I. C. C. 131, even though
the rates found unreasonable in the latter decision were approved by the
commission in 35 I. C. C. 187, as no order was enterd in that case requiring
the maintenance of the approved rates for the future and the evidence
in 140 I. C. C. 131, as well as in the case under consideration, was dissim-
ilar thereto. Brannon Coal Co. v. Southern Ry. Co., 486 (487).
PEDDLER-CAR SERVICE.

The proposed cancellation of rates on fresh meats, packing-house products,
and other articles in peddler cars from Illinois and Indiana points to
destinations on branch lines of the Chesapeake & Ohio, diverging from the
main line at Catlettsburg, Ky., and Barboursville, W. Va., applicable
over the Southern to Louisville, Ky., and thence over the C. & O., found
not justified as they were published to meet rates prescribed in 104 I. C. C.
641, between the same points, over a longer route over which transpor-
tation conditions were not shown to have been more favorable. Fresh
Meats and Packing-House Products, 121.

PENALTY CHARGES.

Under Rule 5, section 3, of the consolidated classification, whereby loose
articles are rated three classes higher than the same articles packed in
authorized containers, the rate assessed on wooden wall cases, or shelving,
shipped loose in a mixed carload of store fixtures, consisting of the com-
modity rate on furniture plus the penalty charge, was found not unreason-
able although the classification was subsequently amended to permit ship-
ments of the kind involved to move at furniture rates. Jackson Traffic
Bureau v. Alabama G. S. R. Co., 327.

PENDENCY.

No finding for the future was warranted as to rates on petroleum products
from Group 3, Oklahoma Points, to Paducah, Ky., as the rates were under
consideration in a pending proceeding. Illinois Oil Co. v. Atchison,
T. & S. F. Ry. Co., 381 (385).

Application for authority to charge on cotton and cotton linters from Okla-
homa points on the St. Louis-San Francisco to southern and Carolina
mill points, Virginia cities, and south Atlantic ports, over routes through
Texas, thence via New Orleans or Baton Rouge, La., rates less than those
in effect from intermediate Texas points was held in abeyance until a
decision was rendered in a pending docket of broader scope. Routing
and Transit on Cotton, 762 (763).

157 I. C. C.

PER CAR RATES.

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 complainants desired a charge per car not in excess of that
resulting from the lumber rate applied to the minimum weight sought.
Verhalen Co. v. Atchison, T. & S. F. Ry. Co., 133 (135).
PERCENTAGE RATES.

Rates on rough-quarried granite from Quincy, Adams, and West Quincy,
Mass., and Barre and Ryegate, Vt., to Rochelle Park, N. J., found unrea-
sonable to the extent that they exceeded 80 per cent of sixth-class rates,
minimum 50,000 pounds. Riverside Monument Works v. Erie R. Co., 81.
Commodity rates and class rates subsequently made applicable under an
alternative provision on glass bottles from East St. Louis and Alton, Ill.,
to Griffin, Ga., found unreasonable to the extent that they exceeded rates
equal to 38 per cent of the first-class rates under the distance scale pre-
scribed in the southern class-rate investigation, that also being the per-
centage relationship between commodity and first-class rates under the
scale prescribed in Consolidated Southwestern Cases and applicable in
the Southwest. Reasonable rates prescribed for the future and reparation
awarded. Creomulsion Co. v. Southern Ry. Co., 95.

Rates on excelsior from Hallsboro, Norfolk, and other points in Virginia
to Louisville, Ky., St. Louis, Mo., and Cincinnati, Cleveland, and Colum-
bus, Ohio, found unreasonable for the future to the extent that they
exceeded or may exceed 27.5 per cent of contemporaneous first-class rates
in effect from and to the points involved. Hallsboro Mfg. Co. v. Atlantic
Coast Line R. Co., 124.

Compared with the percentage of first-class rates on sewer pipe in central
territory, class E ratings in the western and in Illinois classifications are
less than 75 per cent of the central territory sixth-class rates. Cancel-
lation of Commodity Rates on Sewer Pipe, 514 (524).
Rates on vitrified-clay sewer pipe and on wall coping from Craigsville, Pa.,
to destinations in the eastern trunk-line territory and New England
territories found unreasonable and unduly prejudicial for the future to
the extent they exceed 90 per cent of the contemporaneous sixth-class
rates, and rates from St. Marys, Brockway, Patton, and Clearfield, Pa.,
to the same destinations found unduly preferential to extent they exceed
90 per cent of the lowest sixth-class rates in effect from any one of the
four points specified to the destinations involved. Reasonable rates
prescribed for future. Id. (528).

Rates on vitrified-clay sewer pipe from Uhrichsville, Ohio, to Williamsville,
N. Y., found not unreasonable in the past but unreasonable for the future
to the extent that it may exceed 90 per cent of the contemporaneous
sixth-class rate. Reasonable rate prescribed for future. Id. (534).
Maintenance of the same rates on both rough and dressed limestone from
points in the Bedford district of Indiana to Baltimore, Md., and Washing-
ton, D. C., found unduly prejudicial, since the value of dressed limestone,
its susceptibility to damage in transit, and its loading, as contrasted with
the same transportation characteristics of rough limestone, establish that
the rates on the latter should not exceed 80 per cent of the rates on the
former. Reasonable rates prescribed for the future. O'Meara v. Balti-
more & O. R. Co., 785.

PLEADING AND PRACTICE. See also ISSUE.

A motion to exclude lighterage and car-float service from the investigation
of rail-water terminal facilities, switching costs having been excluded,
was denied as the investigation included every service beyond the rail
ends at the ports. Wharfage Charges at Atlantic and Gulf Ports, 663 (671).
The commission deemed it unnecessary to decide whether the examiner
erred in sustaining the objection of the carrier to the introduction of
evidence as to divisions and the denying the protestant's motion that the
carrier be required to file a statement showing the revenue accruing to it
under the proposed and existing routes, since the proposed rates appeared
to be compensatory, and the matter of divisions to only one participating
carrier was immaterial. Routing and Transit on Cotton, 762 (768).
PORT DIFFERENTIALS AND EQUALIZATION.

Making rates to and from the nearest rate-making point applicable to and
from ship side, with a segregation of uniform port rates, would not bring
about equalization of rates to and from ports as carriers could still meet
competition by shrinking the line-haul rates. If port charges were dif-
ferent the carrier having the larger charge could shrink the line-haul rate
to offset it. Wharfage Charges at Atlantic and Gulf Ports, 663 (684).
POWER OF COMMISSION. See JURISDICTION.

PRACTICES OF CARRIERS. See RULES, REGULATIONS, And Practices.
PREFERENCES AND PREJUDICES. See also DISCRIMINATION.

In General:

There can be no undue prejudice under section 3 of the act unless it is
within the power of the carrier charged with the prejudice to remove
it by its own act. Hallsboro Mfg. Co. v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co.,
124 (128).

The test of discrimination is the ability of a carrier participating in both
the preferred and the prejudiced traffic to put an end to the discrimi-
nation by its own act. Atlantic Lumber Co. v. Louisville & N. R. Co.,
236 (239).

A common carrier may not unduly prefer one community or disadvan-
tage another, and if it voluntarily chooses to meet competition at one
point in respect to absorption of drayage, its obligation to other com-
munities on its line is clear under past decisions of the commission.
Rules Covering Freight at Bennettsville, S. C., 277 (278).
Preference or prejudice under section 3, to be undue, must ordinarily
be such that the difference in rates is in itself a source of advantage
to the party alleged to be favored and a disadvantage to the other
party. Watab Paper Co. v. Chicago & N. W. Ry. Co., 335 (339).
A carrier can not be charged with undue prejudice because of conditions
not within its control. Lake Charles Harbor & Term. Dist v. Brim-
stone R. & C. Co., 720 (723).

That portion of section 3 of the act which provides that carriers shall
not discriminate in their rates, fares, and charges between connecting
lines has application only to such connecting lines as are subject to
regulation by the commission. Luckenback S. S. Co. v. Southern
Ry. Co., 752 (759).

A carrier complaining of undue prejudice under section 3 of the act
must be one which comes under the jurisdiction of the commission
and to which the provisions of the act apply. Id. (759).

« PreviousContinue »