Charges collected on hogs, in single-deck carloads, and on hogs and calves, in
single-deck mixed carloads, minimum 17,000 pounds, from Payne, Ohio, and
Berne and Plymouth, Ind., to Johnstown, Pa., for which 36-foot cars were ordered,
and from Pierceton, Ind., minimum 18,000 pounds, for which a 40-foot car was
ordered, based on a commodity rate to Pittsburgh, Pa., plus arbitrary beyond,
found applicable and not unreasonable. Although cars furnished ranged in
length from 40 feet to 40 feet 6 inches, tariff provided that minimum applicable
to car ordered would apply if carriers furnished a larger car and that charges
should be based on minimum for that kind of stock which on a straight-carload
basis produced the highest carload charge. C. A. Young Co. v. Pennsylvania
R. Co., 662 (663).
Commodities: Minimum weights were involved or fixed in the following
cases on the commodities designated therein: Acetylene and Oxygen Gases,
Boston to Claremont, N. H., 597; Cincinnati Sheet Metal and Roofing Co. v.
Pennsylvania R. Co., 36 (37); Clothespins from Vermont to Boston, Mass., 214;
Dressed Poultry from Omaha, Nebr., to Austin, Minn., 270; Farm Equipment
in Western Trunk Line Territory, 321; Federal Cartridge Corp. v. Chicago, B.
& Q. R. Co., 679 (686); P. R. Mitchell Co. v. Atchison, T. & S. F. Ry. Co., 518;
Nutting Truck Co. v. Chicago G. W. R. Co., 479 (480); Pulpboard Trays in Of-
ficial Territory, 528 (529); Wine Between Baltimore, Md., and Norfolk, Va.,
435; C. A. Young Co. v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 662.
Follow-Lot Shipments: See FOLLOW-LOT SHIPMENTS.
Graduation: Under rule 34 of the classification carload minimum weights
are graduated according to car lengths, with higher minima for the longer than for
the shorter cars. Handling Carload Shipments in West, 57 (59).
Tariff rule for traffic on which the carload minima are not graduated according
to car capacity, governing two-car shipments which would require each car except
the final one to be loaded as heavily as conditions permit and to be charged for at
not less than the carload minimum weight, and permitting charges to be assessed
on the remainder of the shipment loaded in the follow-lot car at the carload rate
without observance of the carload minimum weight, found lawful. Id. (64).
Rule prescribed in 229 I. C. C. 201, relating to the handling of and charges for
carload shipments loaded in more than one car, qualified to provide that it should
be applied only to traffic the minimum weights for which are graduated to cor-
respond with differences in car capacity in accordance with the principle of rule
34 of the classification. Id. (64, 75).
Light and Bulky Articles: Minimum weights of 30,000 pounds or less are
accorded, as a rule, only to light and bulky articles. To prevent unfair advantages
to the shipper who obtains a larger car the minimum weights for light and bulky
articles are normally graduated under rule 34 according to car length or capacity.
Such graduation raises a right and duty in the shipper to order a car of the size
needed, and rule 34 so provides. If the carrier furnishes two small cars in lieu of a
single large car ordered, the shipper is not permitted to load the two cars subject
only to the minimum weight for the car ordered, but charges are assessed on one
of the two cars subject to the minimum weight for a car of that length and on the
other car at the actual weight, but not less for the two cars together than the
minimum weight for a car of the size ordered. Handling Carload Shipments in
West, 57 (63).
Minimum as Factor in Rate: See also RATE COMPARISONS (BRANCH LINES
WITH MAIN LINES).
While the minimum weight is an integral part of the rate in the sense that it
must be considered in determining the reasonableness of rate, that principle has
no application when tariff specifically provides the minimum that must be used.
C. A. Young Co. v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 662 (663).
Schedules: See MINIMUM AS FACTOR IN RATE under this heading.
Two-for-One: See CARRIER'S CONVENIENCE RULE under this heading.
MISINFORMATION BY SHIPPERS. See Proportional Rates.
MISQUOTATION. See QUOTATION OF RATES (IN General).
MISREPRESENTATION BY SHIPPER. See ADVANCEMEnt of Charges.
Shipments of cottonseed from Waterproof and Ferriday, La., to Seguin, Tex.,
and from certain Louisiana points to Smithville, Tex., billed to Taylor, Tex.,
and reconsigned to respective destinations, routed by complainant on assurances
of agents of intermediate carrier in connection with shipments to Seguin, and of
delivering carrier as to the others, that a certain rate applied, were not misrouted
when rate was restricted not to apply over routes named. As intermediate and
delivering carriers, defendants had no lawful right or authority to take any action
with respect to these shipments until they were tendered to them by preceding
carriers in accordance with original bills of lading. Their agents were guilty of
oral misquotation of applicable rates, for which carriers cannot be held. H. Bland
& Co. v. Texas & N. O. R. Co., 9 (11).
Shipments of structural steel from Minnequa, Colo., which moved via Pueblo,
Colo., to Kansas City, Kans., were fabricated there and forwarded to Brownwood,
Tex., were not misrouted although carriers refused to forward fabricated shipments
over Santa Fe lines from Kansas City at balance of lower joint commodity rate,
when that rate was not applicable from Minnequa to Brownwood over route of
movement in connection with any line or route beyond Kansas City. Kansas
City Structural Steel Co. v. Atchison, T. & S. F. Ry. Co., 13 (14).
Shipment of flour and feed from Clarksville, Tenn., to Alexandria, La., stopped
for partial unloading at Hazlehurst, Brookhaven, and Natchez, Miss., which
moved in accordance with shipper's instructions, was not misrouted. Although
bill of lading specified lower rates applicable over another route, only two stop-offs
for unloading were permissible over that route, and the stop-off at Natchez could
not have been made as a shipment moving over the lower-rated route would not
pass through Natchez. General Foods Corp. v. Louisville & N. R. Co., 142 (144).
When bills of lading specified routing of shipments without naming points of
interchange and showed receipt by the originating carrier of charges prepaid in
stated amounts proper to carry the shipments to destination computed at rates
applicable over the routes of movement, the shipments were not misrouted by
reason of the fact that lower combination rates applied over same routes in con-
nection with a point of interchange other than that through which the shipments
moved. The prepayment of charges was the same in effect as insertion of the
rates over the route of movement in the bills of lading, and there was no conflict
in the rates charged and routes used. Umatilla Fruit Co. v. Atlantic Coast
Line R. Co., 794 (795-796).
Shipments of citrus fruit from Florida, covered by bills of lading showing
specific routing and prepayment of charges, which were consigned to Potomac
Yard, Va., and Bridgeport, Coun., for diversion without indication as to junction
points of interchange, were misrouted when carrier forwarded them to ultimate
destinations via an interchange point over the routes specified subject to rates
which exceeded those in effect through another interchange point on those routes.
In the circumstances, the shipments should have been forwarded over the cheapest
reasonable route available consistent with the routing instructions. Reparation
awarded. Id. (796).
In General: Maintenance of classification mixing rule on carload shipments
from western trunk-line territory to southern and official territories, while main-
taining a more liberal rule resulting in reduced charges, under classification
exceptions, from Illinois territory and west-bank Lake Michigan ports on lines of
the same carriers, found unduly prejudicial to traffic from western trunk-line
territory. Western Trunk Line Class Rates, 119 (124, 125).
Rate charged on synthetic indigo paste, in mixed carload with sodium hydro-
sulphite from Philadelphia, Pa., to McKinley, Tex., found inapplicable. Under
provisions of the mixing rule, the fourth-class rates applied. Applicable rate
found unreasonable E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., Inc., v. Southern S. S.
Co., 165 (166).
Fourth-class rates on frozen fish and poultry in mixed carloads with frozen fruits
and vegetables from Pittsburgh, Pa., to Jacksonville and Miami, Fla., were
inapplicable. Under exception to classification rule 10, providing that carload
rate on each article was applicable to the actual weight thereof and the minimum
weight for the mixed carload was the highest for any article therein, sixth-class
rates on frozen fish and poultry, respectively, were applicable, and fourth-class
rates were found applicable on mixed carloads of fruits and vegetables. Appli-
cable rates found not unreasonable, except that since March 17, 1941, rates on
frozen fruits and vegetables, in mixed carloads, were unreasonable to the extent
that they exceeded aggregate of intermediate rates between those points. Repara-
tion awarded. M. Feigenbaum & Sons v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 585 (587-588).
Charges: Mixed carload rates can be properly prescribed only upon evidence
adequate for a determination of lawful straight-carload rates for the several articles
included. Cincinnati Sheet Metal & Roofing Co. v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 36 (40).
Classification Ratings: Fifth-class carload rates on roof caps, flashings, and
other iron and steel articles from Cincinnati, Ohio, to certain Texas points,
minimum 40,000 pounds, under sec. 1, rule 10 of governing classification, found
inapplicable. Applicable rates were fourth-class rates on roof caps to Terrell,
Lake Dallas, and Sherman; third-class rates on flashings to Lake Dallas and
Sherman; and fifth-class rates to all points, minimum 36,000 pounds, on the other
articles in shipments, under sec. 3, rule 10, based on aggregate charges. Applicable
rates found not unreasonable. Reparation awarded. Cincinnati Sheet Metal &
Roofing Co. v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 36 (37, 40).
Less than Carload with Carload Shipments: While rule 20 of governing
classification provided that "Parts or pieces constituting a complete article, ***"
should take rating provided for a complete article, in determining applicable
charges on mixed carloads of warehouse trucks and parts thereof under line-haul
tariffs in connection with classification rules 10 and 20, extra truck parts were
considered a separate commodity. Carload commodity rate on "Vehicles, viz.,
Trucks, warehouse
*" was applicable on trucks and parts comprising
complete trucks, and third-class rating on wheels and casters not parts of any
trucks in shipment. Applicable charges found not unreasonable. Nutting Truck
Co. v. Chicago G. W. R. Co., 479 (480-482).
Advancement of Charges: See ADVANCEMENT OF CHarges.
Competition: See COMPETITION (Motor).
Less-than-Truckload Ratings: See REDUCTIONS (JUSTIFICATION).
Private Carriers: See TRANSPORTATION (SERVICES CONSTITUTING).
Protective Service: See PROTECTIVE SERVICES (CONTRACTS).
Bates: See also REDUCTIONS (JUSTIFICATION).
Any-quantity motor rate on wine from Baltimore, Md., to Norfolk, Va., was
approved in 238 I. C. C. 549 because it reflected 44 percent of corresponding
first-class rate, which had been prescribed as reasonable minimum truckload
basis for central territory in 8 M. C. C. 233. However, it subsequently appeared
that that first-class rate had been filed through inadvertence and had been can-
celed without becoming effective. The any-quantity rate was so far below less-
than-truckload rates of competing carriers and below 44 percent of actual first-
class rate, which had been found a reasonable minimum basis between those
points in 24 M. C. C. 501, that it was clearly unreasonable. Similarly, proposed
any-quantity rates from Camden, N. J., and Baltimore to Virginia points were
found not justified when respondent failed to appear at the hearing and the
record disclosed no justification for any-quantity or less-than-truckload rates or
for any different rates on wine than the 44-percent basis. Wine Between Balti-
more, Md., and Norfolk, Va., 435 (437-438, 440).
When wine is shipped in less than truckloads, the class rates are reasonable;
and in truckloads the minimum reasonable basis prescribed between the same
points or for the same territory should be observed. Id. (438).
Proposed any-quantity motor rates on canned goods from Baltimore, Md., to
Petersburg, Va., and from Camden, N. J., to Richmond, Va., found not justified.
Respondent did not appear at hearing, and protestant water and rail carriers
showed that the proposed rates were lower than necessary to meet their compe-
tition. They were also lower than minimum truckload basis 32 percent of first
class prescribed for trunk-line territory in 24 M. C. C. 501, and truck-mile earn-
ings on truckload weights appeared unduly low. Reasonable minimum rates
were prescribed on the 32-percent basis, minimum 20,000 pounds. Id. (440–441).
Common-carrier rates on packing-house products from Denver, Colo., to Poca-
tello and Boise, Idaho, minimum 10,000 pounds, found unreasonably low on
basis of truck-mile earnings, and reasonable minimum rates prescribed for that
minimum and for truckloads of 20,000 pounds. Meats and Packing House
Products, Denver to Idaho, 489 (495).
MOTOR COMPETITION. See COMPETITION.
MULTIPLE-CAR SHIPMENTS. See Follow-Lot Shipments.
MULTIPLE LINES. See DIFFERENTIALS IN RATES AND ROUTES (MULTIPLE
LINES).
NATIONAL DEFENSE. See REDUCTIONS (JUSTIFICATION).
NATIONAL MEDIATION BOARD. See RAILWAY LABOR Act (In General).
NEUTRALITY ACT OF 1939. See CONTRACTS (IMPOSSIBILITY OF PER-
FORMANCE).
NOLO CONTENDERE. See PLEADINGS (IN GENERAL).
Schedules: That schedules containing proposed reduced rates on boots and
shoes from Boston, Mass., to New York, N. Y., also published origin and desti-
nation intermediate rules was sufficient notice to dealers at intermediate points
that their interests were adequately protected without representation. Fourth-
section relief denied. Boots and Shoes from Massachusetts to New York City,
332 (336-337).
OFF-ROUTE POINTS. See OUT-OF-LINE HAULS; SCHEDULES (DEPARTURE
FROM).
OMNIBUS CLAUSE. See SCHEDULES (CONSTRUCTION).
OPERATING AND TRANSPORTATION CONDITIONS. See CLASS RATES
(IN GENERAL); SIMILAR CIRCUMSTANCES AND CONDITIONS.
OPERATING RIGHTS. See WATER CARRIERS (Saving CLAUSES).
Difficulty: See SWITCH CONNECTIONS; TIME (STANDARD).
OPPOSITE DIRECTION. See DIRECTION.
Interpreted: Letter of Commission to president of Association of American
Railroads, advising that order requiring filing of protective-service contracts for
approval under sec. 1 (14) (b) did not require filing of contracts limited to pur-
chase of ice to be delivered at icing platforms or in bunkers of refrigerator cars,
intended to exclude from that order only contracts for supplies of ice delivered
entirely at carrier's direction, without the contractor's performing customary
inspections or exercising judgment as to necessity for icing or quantity of ice
required, and was not intended to relieve carriers from filing contracts covering
inspection of refrigerating devices of cars for loading or under load and determina-
tion of icing requirements. Contracts for Protective Services, 145 (159).
Long and Short Haul: Authority granted carriers to revise certain rates on
brick in official territory and from St. Louis, Mo., group to that territory should
be considered as compliance with requirement of outstanding fourth-section
orders for authorization from Commission for any increase in intermediate-point
rates, and no specific revision of such orders was necessary. Eastern Brick
rates, 688 (690).
Setting Aside: See REDUCTIONS (JUSTIFICATION); SIMILAR CIRCUMSTANCES
AND CONDITIONS (PREFERENCE AND PREJUDICE).
OUT-BOUND RATES. See IN-BOUND RATES.
OUT-OF-LINE HAULS.
Rate on compressed cotton from Pinedale, Calif., a branch-line point, to San
Francisco Bay points for water movement beyond, 1 cent higher than rate from
Fresno, Calif., the main-line junction point, was not unreasonable either on appli-
cable minimum of 47,500 pounds or on 75,000-pound shipments. Cotton com-
pressed at Pinedale not only required the same service as at Fresno, but also
required an out-of-line haul past the Fresno compress, and operating expenses
for the branch line were thrice those for the main line. Valley Compress Co. v.
Southern Pac. Co., 89 (94, 97).
PACKING. See WATER CARRIERS (PACKING).
PACKING SHEDS. See FACILITIES (FURNISHING).
PANAMA CANAL. See INCREASED RATES (WATER); MINIMUM RATES (WATER
CARRIERS).
PANAMA CANAL ACT. See INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT (PART I).
PASSENGERS. See also BAGGAGE (PASSENGER SERVICE).
Fares and Charges: See also SLEEPING-CAR COMPANIES.
Since passenger fares are usually based on distance and fares between equi-
distant points are generally the same regardless of whether or not red-cap service
is available, additional cost to the carrier incident to carriage by red caps of
baggage was not considered in making rates. Stopher v. Cincinnati Union Term.
Co., Inc., 41 (46).
PAYMENT OF CHARGES. See ADVANCEMENT OF CHARGES.
PENALTIES AND FORFEITURES.
Responsibility for statement in protective-service contracts of the actual
services covered thereby rests upon the participating carriers, and a service
rendered ostensibly under a contract which in fact does not provide therefor
leaves them liable to the penalties provided for noncompliance with sec. 1 (14) (b).
Contracts for Protective Services, 737 (747).
|