Lapas attēli
PDF
ePub

[68]

Exaction of local rates on through traffic.

No fair or equitable construction will justify the exaction of local rates for freights not local.-Augusta S. R. Co. v. Wrightsville & T. R. Co., 74 Fed. 522; Calloway v. L. & N. R. Co., 7 Inters. Com. R. 431.

The charge of a local rate for a part of a through haul, when the extra expense of a local haul has not been incurred, is prima facie excessive.— Board of Trade v. Nashville, C. & St. L. R. Co., 8 Inters. Com. R. 503.

[69]

Discretion of carrier in fixing rate.

A lower rate for export traffic is merely in the discretion of the carrier.- Matter of Proposed Advances in Freight Rates, 9 Inters. Com. R. 382.

[70]

[ocr errors]

Measure of proper through rate.

What is lawful charge for through transportation when no joint rate has been established,- see post, § 30, note [8].

Ordinarily a through interstate passenger fare should not exceed the sum of the local state fares over the same route, though there is no legal requirement to that effect.— Artz v. Seaboard Air L. R. Co., 11 Inters. Com. R. 458.

[71]

Through rates as standards of comparison.

Rates on through business do not show that a local rate is unreasonable, nor can local rates throw light on the justice or injustice of discrimination between through shipments having the same origin and destination. -Southern R. Co. v. St. L. Hay & G. Co., 153 Fed. 728.

The through rate is not the standard of comparison of the local rate.— Tozer v. U. S., 52 Fed. 917, revg. s. c. 39 Fed. 904; Chicago & N. W. R. Co. v. Osborne, 52 Fed. 912, revg. s. c. 48 Fed. 49, certiorari denied, 146 U. S. 341, 13 Sup. Ct. R. (U. S.) 281.

[72]

What constitutes a through shipment.

The determinative feature of a through shipment is the contract, and if the shipment starts and proceeds on a contract for through shipment, it may be considered such, and given the benefit of a through rate.— Unlawful Rates in Trans. Cotton by K. C. M. & B. R. Co., 8 Inters. Com. R. 121.

Western grain was shipped to Kansas City on local bills of lading and at local rates, with no indication or arrangement that it was going further. It was then re-billed to Chicago and other points, at the "balance of the through rates" from its origin to such destination, and through manipulation of " expense bills," etc., such "balance of through rate" was made less than the rate obtained by deducting the local rate first paid from the through rate for the entire distance.- Held, that such

shipment and reshipment did not constitute a through shipment, was not entitled to the through rate, and was a discrimination against grain shipments originating in Kansas City. In re Atchison, T. & S. F. R. Co., 7 Inters. Com. R. 240.

[73] · Effect of non-consent of connecting carrier to through rate.

It may be an unlawful discrimination for a carrier to quote or allow a joint rate over the lines of a connecting carrier without the latter's consent, if such joint rate is less than the sum of the local rates of the two carriers.- New York, N. H. & H. R. Co. v. Platt, 7 Inters. Com. R. 323.

[74]— Division of through rate.

Where a railroad is owned by the largest individual shipper over it, an excessive division in favor of such road of the joint rates with other railroads amounts to an unjust discrimination.- Re Divisions of Joint Rates, 10 Inters. Com. R. 385.

The Interstate Commerce Commission has no authority to condemn the division of a through rate, unless a part of the through line and the article shipped have a common ownership, and a grossly excessive division is made for the purpose of paying a rebate.- Re Transportation of Salt, 10 Inters. Com. R. 148.

When freight is shipped over a through route, the fact that one railroad receives a share of the total through charge which is equal to its local rate for the carriage, is not sufficient to make the shipment a merely local shipment on that road.-Independent Ref. Assn. v. W. N. Y. & P. R. Co., 6 Inters. Com. R. 378.

[75]

Complainant must be person affected by rate.

Disparity between through rates and local rates held not unduly discriminatory, when not complained of by any one directly affected thereby. -Texas & P. R. Co. v. Interst. Com. Commission, 162 U. S. 197, 16 Sup. Ct. R. (U. S.) 666, revg. s. c. 57 Fed. 948, affg. s. c. 52 Fed. 187.

[merged small][ocr errors][merged small]

The service rendered by a carrier in transporting a local passenger from one point on its line to another is not identical with the service rendered in transporting a through passenger over the same rails.— Union Pac. R. Co. v. U. S., 117 U. S. 355, 6 Sup. Ct. R. (U. S.) 772, affg. s. c. 20 Ct. Cl. (U. S.) 70.

[77] Discrimination through classification In general.

Power of Commission to prevent discrimination by classification,-see post, § 49, note [20].

A carrier may not discriminate between shippers by unjustified reclas

sification of freight.-Interst. Com. Commission v. C. H. & D. R. Co., 146 Fed. 559; affd. 206 U. S. 142, 27 Sup. Ct. R. (U. S.) 648.

A carrier may not subject a shipper of soap in less than carload lots to an undue disadvantage as compared with a shipper in carload lots, through an unjustifiable reclassification.- Interst. Com. Commission v. C. H. & D. R. Co., 146 Fed. 559; affd. 206 U. S. 142, 27 Sup. Ct. R. (U. S.) 648.

Goods in the same classification are presumptively entitled to equal rates.- McMorran v. Grand Trunk R. Co., 2 Inters. Com. R. 604, 3 I. C. C. R. 252.

Classification used as a device to affect unjust discriminations, etc., calls for preventive action by the Interstate Commerce Commission.Coxe Bros. v. Lehigh V. R. Co., 2 Inters. Com. R. 195, 229, 3 Inters. Com. R. 460, 4 I. C. C. R. 535.

[blocks in formation]

That by keeping hay in a higher classification, carriers would be more likely to promptly furnish cars for its movement, is no justification at all for a classification higher than the other facts warrant.— National Hay Assn. v. L. S. & M. S. R. Co., 9 Inters. Com. R. 264.

[blocks in formation]

Determination of proper classifications,-see ante, § 28, notes [32][34].

The proper method of determining whether there has been discrimination in classification is comparison with the classification accorded by carriers on analogous articles.- Brownell v. Columbus & C. M. R. Co., 4 Inters. Com. R. 285, 5 I. C. C. R. 638.

[blocks in formation]

Classification of specific articles,- see ante, § 28, note [37].

If the cost of transporting two commodities is substantially the same, it is discrimination to classify them so that one pays nearly twice as much as the other.- Rea v. Mobile & O. R. Co., 7 Inters. Com. R. 43.

Classification of celery on a different basis than similar garden vegetables is discriminative.- Tecumseh Celery Co. v. Cincinnati, J. & M. R. Co., 4 Inters. Com. R. 44, 318, 5 I. C. C. R. 663.

It is unjust discrimination to place in different classification soap substantially equal in value and held out as suited for like purposes.Beaver v. Pittsburg, C. & St. L. R. Co., 3 Inters. Com. R. 285, 564, 4 I. C. C. R. 733.

It is not unjust discrimination to give a higher classification to patent medicines than to ale and beer, in view of the higher commercial value and less volume of traffic of the former.-Warner v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. Co., 3 Inters. Com. R. 74, 4 I. C. C. R. 32.

Putting Pearline, which competes with common soap, in a classification where the rate is twice as great, is an unlawful discrimination.Pyle v. E. Tenn. V. & G. R. Co., 1 Inters. Com. R. 600, 767, 1 I. C. C. R. 465.

[81] Actions and proceedings — Right of action arising from unlawful discriminations.

Joint and several liability of carriers,- see ante, note [10].
Recovery of overcharges,- see ante, § 26, notes [52], [57].

Right of action by connecting carrier to recover for unjust discrimina tion,-- see post, § 35, note [29].

Actions to recover for violations of long and short haul rule,— see post, § 36, notes [37]-[41].

Whether statutory remedies supplant existing remedies,- see post, § 40, note [2].

Mandamus to compel rendering of services without discrimination,— sec post, § 57, note [13].

A person suing a public service corporation for discrimination in rates is not precluded from recovery on the theory that his payments were voluntary when he did not know of the discrimination and therefor made his payments under a mistake as to a material fact.— Armour Packing Co. v. Edison E. L. Co., 115 App. Div. (N. Y.) 51, 100 N. Y. Supp. 605.

If the inability of a favorably located grain elevator to earn as much as other similarly situated elevators was occasioned by the unlawful acts of the defendant railroad companies and elevator association, or because of an unlawful discrimination enforced against the plaintiffs, they are entitled to recover any damages thus occasioned, no matter under what form of agreement the defendants may have acted, or what method of procedure they adopted.- Kellogg v. Sowerby, 93 App. Div. (N. Y.) 124, 87 N. Y. Supp. 413.

An action will lie at common law against a carrier for denying a shipper the equality of right which he was entitled to enjoy with the other patrons of such carrier.- Langdon v. N. Y. L. E. & W. R. Co., 58 Hun (N. Y.), 122, 11 N. Y. Supp. 514, affg. s. c. 9 N. Y. Supp. 245.

[blocks in formation]

Restraining excessive charges,- see ante, § 26, note [48].

Enjoying discriminations between connecting carriers,— see post, § 35, note [30].

A suit in equity may be maintained at the instance of the government, to restrain railroad companies from discriminations in rates.-U. S. v. Mich. Cent. R. Co., 122 Fed. 544.

[blocks in formation]

The damages which a shipper will suffer from the exaction of an unjust or discriminatory rate are in no way fully measured by the difference between a reasonble and just rate and the unreasonable and unjust rate. Jewett v. Ch. M. & St. P. R. Co., 156 Fed. 160.

[84]

Pleadings.

Answering a complaint of undue discrimination, the carrier alleged that it gave the favored company a lower rate in consideration of the settlement of pending litigation.- Held, this gave no basis on which an estimate could be made of the actual charges, and that such answer was insufficient. Goodridge v. U. Pac. R. Co., 37 Fed. 182; affd. 149 U. S. 680, 13 Sup. Ct. R. (U. S.) 977

Where the carrier has sought to justify a higher rate from one competing point than from another on the ground of greater distance, and the complainant shows no circumstances which counteract the influence of distance as a controlling factor, the complaint against such rates will be dismissed.-Freight Bureau v. C. N. O. & T. P. R. Co., 7 Inters. Com. R. 180.

A complaint alleging a conspiracy between railroad companies and an association of elevator owners whereby the latter would discriminate in rates and service against a particular elevator, states a good cause of action. Kellogg v. Lehigh V. R. Co., 61 App. Div. (N. Y.) 35, 70 N. Y. Supp. 237.

A complaint which restricts the character of the action to a recovery under a Pennsylvania statute against discriminations, etc., providing a penalty for such action on the part of the carrier, will not enable a recovery of the damages to which the carrier would be liable at common law for such discriminations.— Langdon v. N. Y. L. E. & W. R. Co., 58 Hun (N. Y.), 122, 11 N. Y. Supp. 514, affg. s. c. 9 N. Y. Supp. 245.

A complaint under the common law liability of a carrier for excessive charges fails to allege facts essential to a cause of action, where it contains no allegation that the rates charged and paid by plaintiff were in excess of the reasonable compensation for the services rendered; no allegation but that the rates paid by the other two corporations mentioned

« iepriekšējāTurpināt »