Lapas attēli
PDF
ePub

Carriers mainly engaged in the transportation of export flour for many years published the same rate on wheat and flour, but now change their tariff so as to charge more for flour than for wheat.Held, that this does not make an irrebuttable presumption of discrimination.- Export & Domestic Rates, 8 Inters. Com. R. 214.

A hotel and land company and a railroad were under substantially the same ownership and control. The land company bought tickets from the railroad for full price and then sold them only to its patrons at half price.-Held, that this does not constitute a discrimination against complainant remediable under the Interstate Commerce Act.Willson v. Rock Creek R. Co., 7 Inters. Com. R. 83.

That a railroad and a land or other subsidiary company are under a common ownership and control, and the latter company does acts which, if done by the railroad, would violate the Interstate Commerce Act, does not constitute necessarily a device to enable the road to evade its legal obligations.- Willson v. Rock Creek R. Co., 7 Inters. Com. R. 83.

-

A railway owned a development company and had it purchase grain, which the former transported to market and sold, taking as payment for the transportation only the profit from the transaction, if any.Held, that this was but a device to get traffic which it could not otherwise get, and to give a rate which otherwise would be palpably discriminative. Hence, the practice was unlawful.-In re Grain Rates of Chicago, G. W. R. Co., 7 Inters. Com. R. 33.

Unless within the exceptions authorized by statute, discriminations in shipments of like commodities, based solely upon the purpose or "business motive" of the shipper, are unlawful whether affected directly or indirectly by methods of classifications.— Duncan v. A. T. & S. F. R. Co., 6 Inters. Com. R. 85.

The arbitrary allowance of a "manufacturer's special rate" on coal is an unjust discrimination.—In re Rates on Coai, 3 Inters. Com. R. 609, 4 Inters. Com. R. 157, 5 I C. C. R. 466.

Yardage and mileage payments by carriers to a firm owning improved stock cars, which more than pay the entire cost of the cars in two years, including expenses of operation, are unlawful rebates.Shamberg v. D. L. & W. R. Co., 3 Inters. Com. R. 173, 502, 4 I. C. C. R. 630.

A special tariff of freight rates for emigrants is an unlawful discrimination- Elvey v. Ill. Cent. R. Co., 2 Inters. Com. R. 804, 3 I. C. C. R. 652.

Petitioner had the carrier build sidetracks to the doors of his mill, so that unloading could be made directly from the cars. He complains because the carrier pays a large part of the cost of cartage for

shippers who do not have such sidetracks.- Held, the complaint does not necessarily make out a case of discrimination.- Hezel M. Co. v. St. L. A. & T. H. R. Co., 2 Inters. Com. R. 571, 3 Inters, Com. R, 701, 5 I. C. C. R. 57.

A railroad may make special rates for immigrants as a class, and decline to give the same rate to others for whom different accommodations are furnished.- Savery v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. Co., 1 Inters, Com. R. 695, 2 Inters. Com. R. 210, 2 I. C. C. R. 338,

Free cartage, not included in the published schedules, is an unlawful rebate. Stone v. Detroit, G. H. & M. R. Co., 2 Inters. Com. R. 152, 185, 3 Inters. Com. R. 60, 3 I. C. C. R. 613.

It is not discriminative for a railroad to give, with its tickets, an agreement that in case the passenger purchases lands from the company, part or the whole of the purchase price of the ticket will be allowed in payment on the land.- Smith v. No. Pac. R. Co., 1 Inters. Com. R. 611, 1 I. C. C. R. 208.

If a carrier offers to all a general rate which is reasonable, but gives to some a lower rate for special inducements, offering the lower rate to others if they will comply with such special inducements, it is not unjustly discriminating.-Lough v. Outerbridge, 143 N. Y. 271, 38 N. E. 292, 25 L. R. A. 674, affg. s. c. 68 Hun (N. Y.), 486, 22 N. Y. Supp. 976.

It is unlawful for railroad companies to refuse to carry grain from one elevator upon the same terms as they carry grain from those of an elevator association.- Kellogg v. Sowerby, 93 App. Div. (N. Y.) 124, 87 N. Y. Supp. 413.

A discrimination of 72 cents per ton on shipments of coal is unreasonable. Louisville, E. & St. L. R. R. Co. v. Crown Coal Co., 43

Ill. App. 228.

A discrimination of $10 per car on shipments of railroad ties between the same points is unjust.- Louisville, E. & St. L. R. R. Co. v. Wilson, 132 Ind. 517, 32 N. E. 311, 18 L. R. A. 367n.

A contract whereby a railroad agreed to transport grain for a company at 162 cents per cwt., at the same time stipulating that the shipper should pay 21 cents per cwt., of which 42 cents was to be paid back as a rebate after the shipment was completed, is not invalid. -Cleveland, C. C. & I. R. Co. v. Closser, 126 Ind. 348, 26 N. E. 159, 9 L. R. A. 754n.

A "milling in transit" contract between a carrier and shipper, by which the former contracts to credit on the freight charges on the latter's manufactured goods any charges on raw material shipped to the shipper's factory, is not, on its face, a violation of a statute against rebates or unjust discriminations.- Laurel Cotton Mills v. Gulf & S. I. R. Co., 84 Miss. 339, 37 So. 134, 66 L. R. A. 453.

A carrier may employ certain shippers to perform services for it for compensation, and so to do is not discrimination, even though it diminishes such shippers' payments for transportation of their freight. Rothschild v. Wabash R. Co., 15 Mo. App. 242, 4 S. W. 418.

A railroad corporation agreed to carry merchandise for a party at a fixed rate less than it would carry for any other person.- Held, that this contract was illegal at common law.- Messenger v. Pa. R. Co., 36 N. J. L. 407.

A carrier transporting logs to a sawmill cannot give a lower rate to a shipper who agreees to ship the lumber by the same route, than to one who makes no such agreement.- Hilton Lumber Co. v. Atlantic C. L. R. Co., 136 N. C. 479, 48 S. E. 813, 141 N. C. 171, 53 S. E. 823.

[67] Foreign and domestic, and through and local rates — What adjustment carriers may make.

Legislative control over joint tariffs,- see ante, § 28, note [26]. Power of carriers to establish through routes and joint-rates,- see ante, § 30, note [1].

What constitute through or joint-rates,—see ante, § 30, note [2]. Withholding through rates as form of discrimination,- see post, § 32, note [23].

Duty of carriers establishing joint rate to charge rate published,— see post, § 33, note [1].

It often happens that where traffic moves over two or more railways a certain expense attaches to the interchange of that traffic, which makes reasonable the imposition of a higher rate than if the movement were over a single road for the same distance.- Texas & C. P. Co. v. St. L. & S. F. R. Co., 12 Inters. Com. R. 78.

It is not unlawful for carriers to maintain reconsignment rates which are higher in some cases than their proportions of through rates, and that the reconsignment rate is sometimes the same as the proportion of the through rate does not warrant an inference of unjust discrimination.— St. Louis Hay & G. Co. v. Ill. Cent. R. Co., 11 Inters. Com. R. 486

That certain through rates are less than the sum of the in and out rates does not make them necessarily unlawful.- St. Louis Hay & G. Co. v. Ill Cent. R. Co., 11 Inters. Com. R. 486.

Defendant transported coal from the mines to Baltimore. Part of it was for local consumption in Baltimore, and part was for reshipment by water.-Held, that a lower rate on the latter was justifiable.City Gas Co. v. B. & O. R. Co., 11 Inters. Com. R. 371.

A railroad has no right to make one rate for passengers whose journey ends at the terminus of its branch line, and a lower rate for

passengers who travel beyond that line by the stages of a particular transportation company or who patronize the hotels of a particular association, in both of which the railroad owns a controlling interest.— Wylie v. No. Pac. R. Co., 11 Inters. Com. R. 145.

It is not permissible, under Interst. Com. Act, § 2, for two or more carriers to establish a joint through rate, less than the sum of their locals, which is available only to a particular shipper or class of shippers, while denying such lower rate to other shippers of like traffic between the same points of origin and destination.- Capital C. G. Co. v. Central Vt. R. Co., 11 Inters. Com. R. 104.

A through passenger rate higher than the sum of the two local rates making up the distance, by the amount of the bus fare for transfer between the two stations, is not discriminative where the reasonableness of such bus fare is not questioned.― Behrend v. Wash. So. R. Co., 9 Inters, Com. R. 637.

A comparison of rates, showing a considerable difference between round trip and the aggregate of local fares, etc., is not in itself sufficient to condemn the higher rate as discriminative, as the conditions affecting local and through travel are substantially unlike. Carr v. No. Pac. R. Co., 9 Inters. Com. R. 1.

In the absence of special and clearly justifying conditions, any permanent system of rates which renders a service for the foreigner at a less price than is paid by the American, is unjust to the American. - Export & Domestic Rates, 8 Inters. Com. R. 214.

-

The Interstate Commerce Act does not, as a matter of law, prohibit the charging of an export and a domestic rate upon the same traffic to the same point.- Export & Domestic Rates, 8 Inters. Com. R. 214.

The Interstate Commerce Commission ought not to interfere with a low export rate, unless it clearly appears that the disparity is unduly great, or that no conditions abroad require it.- Export & Domestic Rates, 8 Inters. Com. R. 214.

A low export rate may sometime be necessary to dispose of our surplus wheat, and to promote the movement abroad of our surplus corn.-Export & Domestic Rates, 8 Inters. Com. R. 214.

In the application of export rates, intermediate territory should not be discriminated against. In no case should the rate from the more distant point to the seaboard be less than that from intermediate points on the same line.- Export & Domestic Rates, 8 Inters. Com. R. 214.

Whatever line participates in a low export rate must make a corresponding rate on similiar traffic from intermediate points on its line.-Export & Domestic Rates, 8 Inters. Com. R. 214.

[graphic]

In competition for business, carriers may with propriety make a lower charge on export than on domestic traffic.- Export & Domestic Rates, 8 Inters. Com. R. 214.

Higher through or combination rates on corn for export from Illinois than from Iowa are discriminative.-Export Rates from Points E. & W. of Miss. River, 8 Inters. Com. R. 185.

An export rate of an inland carrier is essentially the division of a through export rate, and a lower rate to a port on goods for export than on those for local consumption is not necessarily a discrimination.Kemble v. Boston & A. R. Co., 8 Inters. Com. R. 110.

Carriers may lawfully make through rates from points in the United States to foreign countries, or vice versa, of which the portion paid to the inland carrier within the United States is less than the rate of such carrier on domestic commodities.-- Kemble v. Boston & A. R. Co., 8 Inters. Com. R. 110, overruling N. Y. Bd. of T. & T. v. Pa. R. Co., 3 Inters. Com. R. 417, 4 I. C. C. R. 447, to conform to Texas & P. R. Co. v. Inters. Com. Commission, 162 U. S. 197, 16 Sup. Ct. R. (U. S.) 666, 5 Inters. Com. R. 405.

A lower rate on trainload than on carload lots is not justified by the fact that the former are for export.- Paine Bros. v. Lehigh V. R. Co., 7 Inters. Com. R. 218.

The addition of a reasonable local rate to a reasonable through rate in order to fix the through charge to the local station is likely to produce a relatively unreasonable rate to that station. The difference in situation of the basing and local points in respect of through traffic is not properly measured by the rate for carriage between them.- Railroad Commission of Ga. v. Clyde Ss. Co., 4 Inters. Com. R. 120, 5 I. C. C. R.

324.

In making and filing export tariffs, the rate to the seaboard should not, unless in exceptional cases, be less than the inland tariff rate.-N. Y. Prod. Exch. v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. Co., 2 Inters. Com. R. 13, 28, 553, 3 I. C. C. R. 137.

When two carriers enter into an agreement for joint rates, covering all stations on their lines in the state, they create virtually a new, independent line, which is subject to the law as to discriminations.- Blair v. Sioux C. & P. R. Co., 109 Iowa, 369, 80 N. W. 673.

A through rate may be made less than the sum of local rates between the same points.-Southern R. Co. v. Commonwealth, 116 Ky. 907, 25 Ky. L. R. 1078, 77 S. W. 207.

A carrier may charge higher rates for local or domestic freight than for through or extra-territorial freight.- Shipper v. Pa. R. Co., 47 Pa. 338.

« iepriekšējāTurpināt »