Page images
PDF
EPUB

track of the Savage Brick Company, at Keystone Junction, while furnish-
ing and offering to furnish cars to complainants' competitors at other
points, under the circumstances disclosed by the evidence and described
in the findings, was undue and unlawful discrimination against com-
plainants, for which they are entitled to reparation. Id.

CARTRIDGES.

Rates on. Chamber of Commerce of Chattanooga v. Southern R. Co. 118.

CASES CITED.

Allen v. L. N. A. & C. R. Co. 1 1. C. C. Rep. 199,-cited on p. 34.

Allowances to Elevators by Union P. R. Co., Re, 10 I C. C. Rep. 309,-
cited on p. 399.

A. T. & S. F. Ry. Co., Re, 7 1. C. C. 240,-cited on p. 660.

Board of Trade of Chattanooga v. East Tennessee, V. & G. R. Co. 5 I. C.
C. Rep. 546, 4 Inters. Com. Rep. 213,-cited on p. 112.

Board of Trade of Lynchburg v. Old Dominion 8. S. Co. 6 I. C. C. Rep.
633,-cited on pp. 98, 350.

Butchers' & Drovers' Stock Yards Co. v. Louisville & N. R. Co. 14 C. C.
A. 290, 31 U. S. App. 252, 67 Fed. 35,-cited on pp. 186, 189.

Carr v. Northern Pacific Railway Company, 9 I. C. C. Rep. 1,-cited on

p. 251.

Cartage case, See INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION v. DETROIT, G. H.
& M. R. Co.

Cattle Raisers' Association of Texas v. Forth Worth & Denver City Rail-
way Company et al. 7 I. C. C. Rep. 513,-cited on p. 447.

Central Stock Yards Co. v. Louisville & N. R. Co. 55 C. C. A. 63, 118
Fed. 113,-cited on p. 192.

Central Stock Yards Co. v. Louisville & N. R. Co. 112 Fed. 823,-cited
on p. 191.

Central Stock Yards Co. v. Louisville & N. R. Co. 192 U. S. 568, 48 L. ed.
565, 24 Sup. Ct. Rep. 339,-cited on p. 374.

Central Yellow Pine Association v. Illinois Central Railroad Company
et al. 10 I. C. C. Rep. 505,-cited on pp. 579, 582.

Central Yellow Pine Association v. Vicksburg, Shreveport & Pacific Rail-
road Co. 10 I. C. C. Rep. 193,-cited on pp. 399, 545, 546.

Charges for the Transportation and Refrigeration of Fruit Shipped from
Points in Michigan on the Pere Marquette and Michigan Central Railroads,
Matter of, 10 I. C. C. Rep. 360,-cited on p. 615.

Chicago Board of Trade v. Chicago & Alton R. Co. et al. 4 I. C. C. Rep.
158,-cited on pp. 430, 452.

Cleveland, C. C. & St. L. R. Co. v. Illinois, 177 U. S. 514, 44 L. ed. 868,
20 Sup. Ct. Rep. 722,--cited on p. 225.

Consolidated Forwarding Co. v. Southern P. Co. 9 I. C. C. Rep. 182,-
cited on p. 615.

Copp v. Louisville & N. R. Co. 50 Fed. 164,-cited on p. 100.

Covington & Lexington Turnpike Road Co. v. Sandford, 164 U. S. 596,
597, 41 L. ed. 566, 17 Sup. Ct. Rep. 198,-cited on p. 585.

Covington Stock Yards Co. v. Keith, 139 U. S. 128, 35 L. ed. 73, 11 Sup.
Ct. Rep. 461,-cited on p. 185.

Crews v. Richmond & D. R. Co. 1 1. C. C. Rep. 401, 1 Inters. Com. Rep.
703,-cited on p. 213.

Danville v. Southern Railway Co. 8 I. C. C. Rep. 409,-cited on p. 314.

Denaby Main Colliery Co. v. Manchester, Sheffield & Lincolnshire Rail-
way Co. L. R. 11 App. Cas. 97,-cited on pp. 209, 350.

Diamond Mills v. B. & M. R. R. 9 I. C. C. Rep. 311,-cited on p. 681.

Divisions of Joint Rates and Other Allowances to Terminal Railroads,
Matter of, 10 I. C. C. Rep. 385,-cited on p. 673.

Duncan v. Atchison, T. & 8. F. Ry. Co. et al. 6 I. C. C. Rep. 85,-cited
on p. 225.

East Tennessee, Va. & Ga. Railway v. Interstate Commerce Commission,
39 C. C. A. 422, 99 Fed. Rep. 61,-cited on pp. 541, 580.

East Tennessee, V. & G. R. Co. v. Interstate Commerce Commission, 181
U. S. 1, 45 L. ed. 719, 21 Sup. Ct. Rep. 516,-cited on pp. 109, 134, 472.

Export & Domestic Rates, Re, 8 I. C. C. Rep. 214,-cited on p. 63.

Express Cases, 117 U. S. 1, 29 L. ed. 791, 6 Sup. Ct. Rep. 542, 628,-
cited on p. 374.

Georgia Peach Growers' Association v. Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Co.
10 I. C. C. Rep. 255,-cited on p. 621.

Glade Coal Company Case, 10 I. C. C. Rep. 226,-cited on p. 647.
Guild v. Hale, 15 Mass. 455,-cited on p. 104.
Harp Case, 118 Fed. 169,-cited on p. 647.
Harp v. Choctaw, O. & G. Ry. Co. 118 Fed. 169,-cited on p. 245.

H. H. Tift v. Southern Railway Company et al. 123 Fed. Rep. 789,–
cited on p. 555.

Holmes v. Southern Ry. Co. 8 I. C. C. Rep. 568,-cited on pp. 535, 542.
Import Rate Case,-cited on p. 63.

Independent Refiners' Asso. v. Western New York & P. R. Co. 6 I. C. C.
Rep. 378,-cited on p. 98.

Interstate Commerce Commission v. Baird, 194 U. S. 25, 48 L. ed. 860,
24 Sup. Ct. Rep. 563,-cited on p. 401.

Interstate Commerce Commission v. Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co. 186 C. S.
320, 46 L. ed. 1182, 22 Sup. Ct. Rep. 824,-cited on p. 88.

Interstate Commerce Commission v. Clyde S. 8. Co. et al. 181 U. S. 29,
45 L. ed. 729, 21 Sup. Ct. Rep. 512,-cited on p. 109.

Interstate Commerce Commission v. Detroit, G. H. & M. R. Co. 167 L'. S.
633, 42 L. ed. 306, 17 Sup. Ct. Rep. 986,-cited on p. 205.

Interstate Commerce Commission v. Southern Pacific Co. et al. 123 Fed.
Rep. 597,-cited on p. 592.

Interstate Commerce Commission v. Southern Pacific Co. et al. 132 Fed.
829,-cited on pp. 578, 592, 615.

Joint Traffic Association Case, 171 U. S. 569, 571, 577, 43 L. ed. 287, 288,
290, 19 Sup. Ct. Rep. 25,-cited on pp. 541, 580.

Kauffman Milling Company v. Missouri Pacific Railway Company, 4 1. C.
C. Rep. 417, 3 Inters. Com. Rep. 400,-cited on pp. 36, 37, 38, 40, 45.

Kentucky & I. Bridge Co. v. Louisville & N. R. Co. 2 Inters. Com. Rep. 351,
2 L. R. A. 289, 37 Fed. 567,-cited on p. 188.

Lit ck & M. R. Co. v. St. Louis & 8. W. R. Co. 4 Inters. Com. Rep.
854, 26 L. R. A. 192, 11 C. C. A. 417, 27 U. S. App. 380, 63 Fed. 775,-
cited on p. 188.

Louisville & N. R. Co. v. Behlmer, 175 U. S. 648, 44 L. ed. 309, 20 Sup.
Ct. Rep. 209,-cited on p. 109.

Louisville d N. R. Co., Petition of, 1 1. C. C. Rep. 31, 1 Inters. Com. Rep.
279,-cited on p. 250.

Macloon v. Boston & M. R. R. Co. et al. 9 I. C. C. Rep. 642,-cited on

p. 224.

Marten v. L. & N. R. R. Co. 9 I. C. C. Rep. 589,-cited on p. 547.

Michigan Insurance Bank v. Eldred, 130 U. S. 693, 32 L. ed. 1080, 9 Sup.
Ct. Rep. 690,-cited on p. 99.

New Orleans Cotton Exchange v. Louisville, N. 0. & T. R. CO. 4 I. C. C.
Rep. 694, 3 Inters. Com. Rep. 523,-cited on p. 63.

New York Produce Exchange v. New York C. & H. R. R. Co. 3 I. C. C.
Rep. 137, 2 Inters. Com. Rep. 553,-cited on p. 63.

Oregon Short Line & U. N. R. Co. v. Northern P. R. Co. 4 Inters. Com. ·
Rep. 249, 51 Fed. 465,-cited on p. 188.

Paine Brothers & Company v. Lehigh Valley Railroad Company et al.
7 I. C. C. Rep. 218,-cited on p. 251.

Pullman Palace Car Co. v. Missouri P. R. Co. 115 U. S. 587, 29 L. ed. 499,
6 Sup. Ct. Rep. 194,-cited on p. 374.

Proposed Advances in Freight Rates, Matter of, 9 I. C. C. Rep. 382,-
cited on pp. 536, 539, 620.

Railroad Commission v. Louisville & N. R. Co. 10 I. C. C. Rep. 173,-
cited on p. 374.

Railroad Comrs. v. Atchison, T. & 8. F. R. Co. 8 I. C. C. Rep. 304,-cited
on pp. 45, 107.

Ratican v. Terminal R. Asso. 114 Fed. 666,-cited on p. 100.

Richmond v. Irons, 121 U. S. 27, 30 L. ed. 864, 7 Sup. Ct. Rep. 788,-
cited on p. 104.

Riddle, Dean & Company v. Pittsburg & Lake Erie Railroad Company, I
I. C. C. Rep. 374, 1 Inters. Com. Rep. 688,-cited on p. 245.

Robinson et al. v. Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Company, Decided by C. C.
App. 4th C. March 14, 1904,-cited on p. 245.

Smyth v. Ames (Nebraska Freight Rate Case) 169 U. S. 466, 42 L. ed.
819, 18 Sup. Ct. Rep. 418,-cited on pp. 538, 539, 585.

Squire & Co. v. Michigan Central R. Co. et al. 4 I. C. C. Rep. 611,-
cited on p. 430.

Texas d P. R. Co. v. Interstate Commerce Commission, 162 U. S. 197,
40 L. ed. 940, 5 Inters. Com. Rep. 405, 16 Sup. Ct. Rep. 666,-cited on
pp. 65, 110.

Transportation of Salt from Hutchinson, Kansas, Re, 10 I. C. C. Rep.

#

I'ruck Farmers' Case, 6 I. C. C. Rep. 295,-cited on p. 376.

Union Terminal R. Co. v. Board of Railroad Commissioners of Kansas,
54 Kan. 352, 38 Pac. 290,-cited on p. 107.

United States v. Freight Association, 166 U. S. 341, 41 L. ed. 1027, 17
Sup. Ct. Rep. 540,-cited on pp. 541, 580.

United States v. New York, 160 U. S. 598,-cited on p. 103.

United States ex rel. Coff man v. Norfolk & Western Railway Company
et al. 109 Fed. 831,-cited on p. 245.

Unlawful Rates in the Transportation of Cotton, Matter of, 8 I. C. C.
Rep. 121,-cited on p. 214.

Wight v. United States, 167 U. S. 512, 42 L. ed. 258, 17 Sup. Ct. Rep.
822,—cited on pp. 206, 673.

CASES DISAPPROVED.

Johnston-Larimer D. Co. v. Atchison, T. & S. F. R. Co. 6 I. C. C. Rep.
586,-cited on pp. 462, 472.

CASINGS.

Freight classification of. Duluth Shingle Co. v. Duluth, 8. 8. & A. R.
Co. 489.

CATTLE.

Rates on. Chicago Live Stock Exchange v. Chicago G. W. R. Co. 428.

CEDAR LUMBER.
Rates on.

Duluth Shingle Co. v. Duluth, S. S. & A. R. Co. 489.

CEDAR POLES.

Rates on. Duluth Shingle Co. v. Duluth, 8. S. & A. R. Co. 489.

CEDAR POSTS.

Rates on. Duluth Shingle Co. v. Duluth, S. S. & A. R. Co. 439.

CEDAR SHINGLES.

Rates on. Duluth Shingle Co. v. Duluth, S. S. & A. R. Co. 439.

CEMENT.

Table showing car capacity and actual loading weight of car loaded with
cement and other commodities. Tist v. Southern R. Co. 577.

Central Yellow Pine Asso. v. Illinois C. R. Co. 533.

Table showing comparison of total annual tonnage of cement with that
of other commodities. T'ift v. Southern R. Co. 568.

Central Yellow Pine Asso. v. Illinois C. R. Co. 534.

CHERRY LUMBER.

Freight classification of.

Duluth Shingle Co. v. Duluth, s. 8. & A. R.

CHEWING GUM.

Rates on. Wrigley v. Cleveland, C. C. & St. L. R. Co. 412.

:

CLOSET FITTINGS.

Rates on. Duluth Shingle Co. v. Duluth, 8. S. & A. R. Co. 480.

CLOSET SEATS.

Rates on. Duluth Shingle Co. v. Duluth, S. S. & A. R. Co. 489.

CLOSET TANKS.

Rates on. Duluth Shingle Co. v. Duluth, S. S. & A. R. Co. 489.

COAL.

Table showing car capacity and actual loading capacity when loaded
with coal as compared with other commodities. Central Yellow Pine Asso.
v. Nlinois C. R. Co. 533.

Tift v. Southern R. Co. 577.
Rates on. Glade Coal Co. v. Baltimore & 0. R. Co. 226.
Denison Light & Power Co. v. Missouri, K. & T. R. Co. 337.
Re Transportation of Coal & Mine Supplies, 473.

COFFEE, GREEN.

RE on. Chainber of Commerce of Chattanooga v. Southern R. Co. 117.

COFFEE, ROASTED.

Rates on. Chamber of Commerce of Chattanooga v. Southern R. Co. 117.

COMBINATIONS.

The advance of rates by defendants was the result of concerted action
by them and other carriers, and, while the question whether such concert
of action is in violation of the anti-trust act is for the determination of the
courts, it is the province and duty of this Commission, when the reason-
ableness of rates is in issue before it, to consider whether the advanced
rates resulted from untrammeled competition, or were fixed by concert
of action or combination of carriers. Central Yellow Pine Asso. v. Illinois C.
R. Co. 505; Tift v. Southern R. Co. 548.

COMBINATION TO PREVENT CONTINUOUS CARRIAGE.

A railroad company does not violate the Act to Regulate Commerce, in
making and carrying out an exclusive contract with a stock yards company
for the exclusive delivery to that company of live stock in the city of Louis-
ville, although in carrying out such contract it refuses to deliver to
another railroad company, for delivery to a competing stock yards, live
stock consigned to such competing stock yards. Railroad Commission of
Kentucky v. Louisville & N. R. Co. 173.

COMPETITION. See also WATER COMPETITION.

1. Applying the law as construed by the United States Supreme Court,

« PreviousContinue »