Page images
PDF
EPUB

the traffic from New York and other eastern points is carried to Nashville
through Chattanooga under substantially different circumstances and con-
ditions from those pertaining to traffic from the same points to Chatta-
nooga, the short distance, and consequently the higher rate to Chatta-
nooga is not unlawful under section four of the statute. Chamber of
Commerce of Chattanooga v. Southern R. Co. 111.

2. The rates from New York and other eastern points to Chattanooga
are not shown to be unreasonable within the meaning of section one of the
Act, although they are higher than the rates from the same points through
Chattanooga to Nashville, the longer distance, as the traffic from New
York and other eastern points is carried to Nashville through Chatta-
nooga under substantially different circumstances and conditions. Id.

3. The rates from Cannon Falls, a point in Minnesota 48 miles from
Minneapolis, to Chicago, East St. Louis, and Louisville, are competitive
rates, as are also the rates from Minneapolis; and Cannon Falls, with its
competition with Minneapolis, is entitled to as low a rate to common points
as the difference in conditions will permit. In view, however, of the de-
sirability of keeping open the Minneapolis market to Cannon Falls grain,
the short distance between those points, and the low rate from Minneapolis
forced by competition, it is apparently not unjust that the grain rate
from Cannon Falls should be as high as the local rate to Minneapolis plus
a 7 cent rate therefrom to Chicago, provided the Cannon Falls dealer is
not thereby subjected to disadvantage as compared with the Minneapolis
grain dealer. Cannon Falls Farmers' Elevator Co. v. Chicago G. W. R.
Co. 650.

4. The favorable location of Cannon Falls with reference to Minneapolis
and Duluth, and the competitive advantage to which the Cannon Falls
dealer is entitled by reason of the route via Duluth, are neutralized to
an extent by manipulation of billing at Minneapolis, whereby Cannon Falls
grain sold in Minneapolis can be reconsigned to Duluth under a substi-
tuted billing and the balance of a through rate, resulting in a less total
charge from Cannon Falls to Duluth than the charge on a through ship-
ment from Cannon Falls to Duluth. Id.

5. The combination of rates on rye and other coarse grain from Cannon
Falls to Minneapolis and thence to Chicago iscent less than the straight
rate from Cannon Falls to Chicago, which is without justification. Id.

6. The Mobile & Ohio Railroad Company is justified in making a lower
rate of charges from St. Louis, Mo., East St. Louis, and Cairo, Ill., to Mo-
bile, Ala., and Meridian, Miss., than for the shorter distances to Tupelo,
Aberdeen, Columbus, West Point, and Starkville, Miss., by actual and con-
trolling competition which creates substantial dissimilarity in the circum-
stances and conditions affecting transportation. Aberdeen Group Com-
mercial Asso. v. Mobile & O. R. Co. 289.

7. Defendant has had in force since April 25, 1903, rates per 100 lbs. on
bananas in carloads from Charleston, S. C., which are 43 cents to Dan-
ville, Va., and 35 cents to Lynchburg, Va., the transportation to the latter
point by defendant's line being through Danville. The lower rate to
Lynchburg is forced upon defendant by the competition of bananas coming

from Baltimore. The 43-cent rate to Danville is not found to be unrea-
sonable, and upon these facts the higher rate to Danville is not in viola-
tion of the Act to Regulate Commerce. Gardner & Clark v. Southern R.
Co. 342.

CONFLICT OF LAWS.

While the regulating statute may be applied to the reasonableness of a
rate from a point in Canada to a point in the United States, it is clear
that no law of the United States can apply to a discrimination between
places in a foreign country. Cist v. Michigan C. R. Co. 217.

CONNECTING CARRIERS.

See also heading Through Rates, under title Rates.

1. A railroad company does not violate the Act to Regulate Commerce
in making and carrying out an exclusive contract with a stock yards com-
pany for the exclusive delivery to that company of live stock in the city
of Louisville, 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.

2. The Act to regulate commerce does not confer upon the Commission
authority to make an order affirmatively requiring a railway carrier to
deliver carloads of interstate freight to a connecting carrier. Id.

CONTINUOUS CARRIAGE. See also COMBINATION TO PREVENT CONTINU-
OUS CARRIAGE.

1. While defendant carrier was entitled to insist upon the application of
the through rate to the through shipment on its line to Hope, Ark., in-
stead of applying the sum of local rates based upon Texarkana, Ark., which
sum was less than the published through charge, it could not lawfully re-
fuse to receive and carry complainant's freight to Texarkana under the
local rate to that point, even though the complainant's attempt to ship its
freight to Texarkana was for the purpose of having it subsequently re-
shipped from that point by another line to Hope, Ark. Hope Cotton Oil
Co. v. Texas & P. R. Co. 696.

2. The complainant is entitled to reparation for damages resulting from
its inability to ship 640 tons of cotton seed to Hope, which it had con-
tracted for and desired to have transported over defendant's line to Texar-
kana, and then by way of another line to Hope, and which shipment de-
fendant had refused to accept under its local rate to Texarkana, but at-
tempted to compel the complainant to pay the through rate to Hope, which
was higher than the local rates based upon Texarkana, Ark. Id.

CORN.

Rates on. Swaffield v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. 281.

H. B. Pitts & Son v. St. Louis & S. F. R. Co. 684.

CORNICE BRACKETS.

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

CORN MEAL.

Rates on.

COTTON.

Aberdeen Group Commercial Asso. v. Mobile & O. R. Co. 289.

Table showing comparison of total annual tonnage of cotton with that of
other commodities. Tift v. Southern R. Co. 568.

COTTON SEED.

Rates on. Hope Cotton Oil Co. v. Texas & P. R. Co. 696.

COTTON SEED HULLS.

Table showing car capacity and actual loading capacity when loaded with
cotton seed hulls as compared with other commodities. Central Yellow
Pine Asso. v. Illinois C. R. Co. 533. Tift v. Southern R. Co. 577.

COTTON SEED MEAL.

Table showing car capacity and actual loading capacity when loaded with
cotton seed meal as compared with other commodities. Central Yellow
Pine Asso. v. Illinois C. R. Co. 533; Tift v. Southern R. Co. 577.

COWPEAS.

Not to be classified with fertilizer in the adjustment of freight rates.
Swaffield v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. 281.

CYPRESS LUMBER.

Table showing car capacity and actual loading capacity when loaded
with cypress lumber as compared with other lumbers and commodities.
Central Yellow Pine Asso. v. Illinois C. R. Co. 533; Tift v. Southern R. Co.
577.

CYPRESS SHINGLES.

Table showing car capacity and actual loading capacity when loaded with
cypress shingles as compared with other lumbers and commodities. Cen-
tral Yellow Pine Asso. v. Illinois C. R. Co. 533; Tift v. Southern R. Co. 577.

DAMAGES. See also REPARATION.

The Act to Regulate Commerce clearly confers authority upon the Com-
mission to award damages in cases brought before it; and as such award
is simply a recommendation, which can only be enforced by a suit at law af-
fording full opportunity for a jury trial, the Act in this respect is, in the
opinion of the Commission, constitutional and valid. Cattle Raisers' Asso.
v. Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co. 83.

DEPOTS. See FREIGHT Depot.

DIFFERENTIALS.

Validity of maintenance of rates on flour from points in Kansas and

Missouri to points in Texas, which are 5 cents per 100 lbs. higher than
those on wheat, where such differential is not applied on flour or wheat
carried in any other direction. Wichita v. Missouri P. R. Co. 35.

[blocks in formation]

1. A railroad company does not violate to Act to Regulate Commerce by
making and carrying out an exclusive contract with a stock yards company,
by which it delivers all live stock transported by it to the yards of such
stock yards company. Railroad Commission of Kentucky v. Louisville &
N. R. Co. 173.

2. A railroad company may provide refrigerator cars by purchase or by
lease; and if the latter plan is adopted, it may make contracts with one
company which exclude the use of cars owned by other companies. Re
Transportation of Fruit, 360.

3. No undue preference between individuals or localities is made by the
failure or refusal of defendants to make "tap line" allowances to mill
owners in their territory, which lies east of the Mississippi, while such
allowances are granted to mill owners by other carriers in the territory
west of the Mississippi. Central Yellow Pine Asso. v. Illinois C. R. Co.
505.

4. Reparation awarded to complainant for defendant's refusal to furnish
cars for the shipment of cross ties, while it did furnish cars to other per-
sons for the interstate shipment of lumber, stone, and many other freight.
articles, and also supplied cars for the shipment of cross ties destined al-
most entirely for its own use. Paxton Tie Co. v. Detroit S. R. Co. 422.

5. In supplying competitor with private switch, and denying like facility
to complainant. Parks v. Cincinnati & M. Valley R. Co. 47.

Between shippers. Central Yellow Pine Asso. v. Illinois C. R. Co. 505.
Re Transportation of Coal & Mine Supplies, 473.

Glade Coal Co. v. Baltimore & O. R. Co. 226.

Re Transportation of Salt from Hutchinson, 1.

Re Division of Joint Rates, etc. 661.

Koch v. Pennsylvania R. Co. 675.

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

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

Re Division of Joint Rates, etc. 385.

Central Yellow Pine Asso. v. Vicksburg, S. & P. R. Co. 193.

Re Allowance of Elevators, 309.

Re Transportation of Salt, 148.

Re Transportation of Immigrants from New York, 13.

See also heading Discrimination between Shippers, under title RATES.
Between places. Lehman Higgins Grocery Co. v. Atchison, T. & S. F. R

Co. 460.

Gardner & Clark v. Southern R. Co. 342.

Mershon S. P. & Co. v. Central R. Co. 456.

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

Chamber of Commerce of Clattanooga v. Southern R. Co. 111.

Re Transportation of Salt, 148.

Central Yellow Pine Asso. v. Vicksburg, S. & P. R. Co. 193.
Re Transportation of Immigrants from New York, 13.

G. C. Pratt Lumber Co. v. Chicago, I. & L. R. Co. 29.

Wichita v. Missouri, P. R. Co. 35.

Cannon Falls Farmers' Elevator Co. v. Chicago, G. W. R. Co. 650.
Koch v. Pennsylvania R. Co. 675.

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

Chamber of Commerce v. Baltimore & O. S. W. R. Co. 378.

See also heading Discrimination between Places under title RATES.

6. By regulation of carrier providing for earlier closing hour of freight
depots at one place than at other competing points. Cincinnati Chamber
of Commerce and Merchants' Exchange v. Baltimore & O. S. W. R. Co. 378.
Between commodities. Duluth Shingle Co. v. Duluth 8. S. & A. R. Co. 489.
Cannon Falls Farmers' Elevator Co. v. Chicago, G. W. R. Co. 650.
Chicago Live Stock Exchange v. Chicago G. W. R. Co. 428.

See also heading Discrimination between Commodities, under title RATES.
7. It is not an unlawful discrimination between commodities, for the
defendant railroad company to deliver carloads of dead freight to the
Southern Railway for consignees in Louisville, and to refuse to deliver
live stock to the same railway at Louisville, consigned to a particular stock
yards, where the defendant railroad company is under a contract with a
competing stock yards company to deliver all live stock to such company.
Railroad Commission of Kentucky v. Louisville & N. R. Co. 173.

Between passengers. Hewins v. New York, N. H. & H. R. Co. 221.

In furnishing cars. Richmond Elevator Co. v. Pere Marquette R. Co. 629.
Thompson v. Pennsylvania R. Co. 640.

Parks v. Cincinnati & M. Valley R. Co. 47.

Glade Coal Co. v. Baltimore & O. R. Co. 226.

See also CARS.

DISMISSAL.

1. As to defendant carrier where it appears that such defendant does
not participate in the rates in question. Chicago Live Stock Exchange v.
Chicago G. W. R. Co. 428.

2. As to defendant carrier where it appears that such carrier has re-
moved the discrimination complained of, as to its lines. Id.

WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

3. Where the existing disadvantage to Cincinnati, arising from the
early closing hour of the freight depot situated there, is not under pres-
ent circumstances unreasonable or undue, but may become so if continued
indefinitely. Cincinnati Chamber of Commerce and Merchants' Exchange
v. Baltimore & O. S. W. R. Co. 378.

DIVISION OF RATES.

See heading Through Rates-Division of Rates, under title, RATES.

« PreviousContinue »