Lapas attēli
PDF
ePub

by which the goods shall be forwarded, the initial carrier has the right to select any customary or usual route which is regarded as safe and responsible.- Snow v. Ind. B. & W. R. Co., 109 Ind. 422, 9 N. E. 702.

Failure to deliver a shipper's goods to a connecting carrier chosen by said shipper and at a point designated by him, but carrying them to another point and delivering them to another connecting carrier, is an unjust discrimination, under the Texas statute.- San Antonio & A. R. Co. v. Stribling, 14 Tex. Ct. R. 38, 89 S. W. 963, modfg. s. c. 12 Tex. Ct. R. 200, 86 S. W. 374.

[22] Embargo.

Embargo against freight originating on particular connecting lines,— see post, § 35, note [7].

Power of Commission as to embargo,- see post, § 49, note [15].

An embargo against complainant's shipments of hay and straw to a particular station is an unlawful discrimination, even though the carrier claimed to seek thereby the relieving of a congestion and the making possible regular service to smaller dealers. Whatever may be said of an embargo as to one commodity only, in a time of congestion, nothing can be said for an embargo which refuses transportation facilities to some establishments while giving them to others.- Rogers v. Phila. & R. R. Co., 12 Inters. Com. R. 352.

It is proper to give embargo notices to connecting lines to avoid further congestion of freight in junction freight yards.- Daish v. Cleveland, A. & C. R. Co., 9 Inters. Com. R. 513.

Where an embargo has been proclaimed as to certain classes of freight, it must be strictly maintained and enforced, to avoid discrimination.— Daish v. Cleveland, A. & C. R. Co., 9 Inters. Com. R. 513.

The anthracite coal strike caused an unprecedented use of defendant's lines for carrying bituminous coal east for industrial and domestic purposes.- Held, that the defendants probably had the right to give such freight a preference over hay, even issuing an embargo against articles like hay, and it was not improper that live stock, perishable freights, and material or supplies for the railroad should be exempted from any embargo imposed.- Daish v. Cleveland, A. & C. R. Co., 9 Inters. Com. R. 513.

[23] Withholding through rates.

Power of carriers to establish through routes and joint rates,- see ante, § 30, note [1].

"Through routes" and "through rates" defined,- see ante, § 30, note [2].

A through rate between two points on fresh meats but not on beef cattle may be a discrimination.- Birmingham P. Co. v. Tex. & P. R. Co., 12 Inters. Com. R. 33.

[graphic]

Refusal to make a joint rate on petroleum and its products, while making joint rates on other traffic, is not a wrongful preference or prejudice. Clark Co. v. L. S. & M. S. R. Co., 11 Inters. Com. R. 558. Failure to publish through rates to one point on a given line, while such rates are published to other points, is undue prejudice.-Johnson v. Ch. M. & St. P. R. Co., 9 Inters. Com. R. 221.

If carriers are allowed to make export rates which are very disproportionate to the corresponding domestic rates, in case of which Interst. Com. Act, § 4, is invariably observed, they should in the making of them treat all intermediate territory alike.- Board of R. R. Comrs. v. A. T. & S. F. R. Co., 8 Inters. Com. R. 304.

The fact that a carrier's proportion of a through rate is its local rate for the haul over its own road or is a fixed amount, which remains the same for all points of origin or distination of traffic reached by the through line, cannot relieve it from joint responsibility as a component of the through line, if the entire rate be violative of the law.- Board of Trade v. Ala. Mid. R. Co., 6 Inters. Com. 1.

It is unlawful discrimination against a locality and a commodity to withhold from its shippers through rates and through bills of lading, when such are given to other localities and commodities.- Harwell v. Columbus & W. R. Co., 1 Inters. Com. R. 494, 631, 1 I. C. C. R. 236.

That a refusal to give a through rate on shipments under certain circumstances operates prejudicially to one locality and favorably to another, does not make it discriminative, for there can be no discrimination against a particular town in a regulation which is general and applies to all towns.- Crews v. Richmond & D. R. Co., 1 Inters. Com. R. 490, 703, 1 I. C. C. R. 401.

[24] Carload shipments and maximum and minimum carload weights.

Power of Commission to prescribe minimum carload weights,-see post, § 49, note [14].

Reasonableness of regulation as to maximum carload weights,- see post, 49, note [31]

Reasonableness of minimum carload weight for refrigerator cars considered.- Consolidated Forw. Co. v. So. Pac. Co., 10 Inters. Com. R. 590. The privilege of shipping small quantities of articles in the same class as a mixed carload is valuable to many shippers, but when it appears that many shippers are subjected to additional disadvantage under the operation of such a mixed carload rule, through the increase in a long standing less than carload rate, the effect of such rule is properly to be considered in passing on the reasonableness of such increased rate.Proctor v. C. H. & D. R. Co., 9 Inters. Com. R. 440.

1

A carrier may, in good faith and to relieve a chronic congestion, cease making carload deliveries of hay at a particular station though not ceasing carload deliveries of other commodities.- Palmers' Board of Trade v. Pa. R. Co., 9 Inters. Com. R. 61.

A maximum carload weight with reasonable increase in rate on the excess loaded is not unlawful, if sufficient difference is preserved between such maximuni and minimum carload weights allowed by the carrier.Suffern, H. & Co. v. Ind. D. & W. R. Co., 7 Inters. Com. R. 255.

Minimum carload weights which are less than the capacity of the cars and which vary with the size of the cars, may be, if accompanied by arbitrary penalties for excess weights, unreasonable and discriminative against shippers.- Suffern, H. & Co. v. Ind. D. & W. R. Co., 7 Inters. Com. R. 255.

[25] Hauling of private or sleeping cars.

Carriers' regulations as to transportation of private cars to be published in schedules,- see ante, § 28, note [18].

When Commission will compel the hauling of sleeping cars,- see post, § 49, note [30].

A carrier may decline to haul private cars at all, or it may haul private cars of a certain class and refuse to haul private cars of a substantially different class. It cannot haul some private cars and refuse to haul others of the same kind.- Carr v. No. Pac. R. Co., 9 Inters. Com. R. 1.

In determining whether it will haul private cars of a certain class, a carrier may properly take into account the effect of the practice upon the various interests and localities which it serves.- Carr v. Pac. R. Co., 9 Inters. Com. R. 1.

A carrier cannot be compelled to haul sleeping cars of one private car company when it already has a sufficient supply of such cars from another company.- Worcester Excursion Car Co. v. Pa. R. Co., 1 Inters. Com. R. 811, 2 Inters. Com. R. 12, 792, 3 I. C. C. R. 577.

A railroad corporation is under no legal obligation to haul the cars of a sleeping car company, and may dictate the terms upon which it will render such service.- Denver & R. G. Co. v. Whan, 39 Colo. 230, 89 Pac. 39.

[26] Transportation, handling and delivery of live-stock. Delivery on sidetracks generally,- see post, note [28].

Transportation of live stock as interstate commerce,- see ante, § 25, notes [2], [9].

Duty of carrier to furnish facilities for loading and unloading of live stock, see ante, § 26, note [18].

A carrier is under no obligation to furnish facilities for delivering and receiving stock at every point where stock yards may be established in a

[graphic]

city, but need only furnish such facilities as are reasonably sufficient for the business of that city. Where, by reason of the discontinuing the facilities to one stock yard the owner is obliged to receive stock through another stock yard and pay charges in addition to the usual transportation charges, the railroad will be required to give such owner facilities. Covington Stock Yards Co. v. Keith, 139 U. S. 128, 11 Sup. Ct. R. (U. S.) 461.

[ocr errors]

It is the duty of a carrier of live stock to provide reasonable facilities for the unloading and care of such stock; and where it has done so, either by building stock yards of its own or by contract with a stock yards company, its refusal to deliver stock to other stock yards in the same city is not an unlawful discrimination, under Interst. Com. Act, § 3.Central Stock Yards Co. v. L. & N. R. Co., 118 Fed. 113, 63 L. R. A. 213; affd. 192 U. S. 568, 24 Sup. Ct. R. (U. S.) 339.

A railroad, which is by law compelled to extend switch connections to all shippers, cannot discriminate against a shipper by refusing to deliver live stock at such switches while it delivers such freight at other points. Interstate Stock Yards Co. v. Indianapolis U. R. Co., 99 Fed. 472.

Under a statute requiring a railroad to give switch connections to all shippers, the railroad is not justified in refusing to deliver or receive live stock at the stock yards of a shipper by reason of the federal statute relative to the care of live stock in transit.- Interstate Stock Yards Co. v. Indianapolis U. R. Co., 99 Fed. 472.

Where a shipper makes switch connections with the consent of the railroad, the owner may lawfully insist that the carrier shall there receive and deliver all such freight as it customarily carries, if the switch connections are convenient and suitable for the delivery and receipt of such freight. -Interstate Stock Yards Co. v. Indianapolis U. R. Co., 99 Fed. 472.

The Atchison, T. & S. F. R. Co., at its Chicago depot, had no facilities for the loading and unloading of cattle, but it maintained a track connecting with the tracks of the Union Stock Yards & Transit Co., and it was customary to deliver cattle consigned to Chicago at the said stock yards. The railroad published and charged, in addition to its regular Chicago rate, a terminal charge on shipments delivered at the Union Stock Yards. The complainant, who had for many years engaged in buying, selling and shipping live stock at the Union Stock Yards, insisted that inasmuch as the railroad provided no facilities for the unloading and handling of cattle at its depot, the delivery station at the stock yards must be deemed the railroad's Chicago station, and that goods consigned to Chicago must be delivered there without the additional charge.-Held, that this contention was untenable.Walker v. Keenan, 73 Fed. 755, revg. s. c. 64 Fed. 992; distinguishing

Covington Stock Yards Co. v. Keith, 139 U. S. 128, 11 Sup. Ct. R. (U. S.) 461.

Use of a particular live stock car and extra charge for transportation in other cars, is not an unjust discrimination.-U. S. v. D. L. & W. R. Co., 40 Fed. 101.

A railroad company cannot bind itself to deliver to a particular stock yard all live stock coming over its lines at a certain point.― McCoy v. Cincinnati, I. St. L. & C. R. Co., 13 Fed. 3.

Railroads may not discriminate between stock yards along its line which have the facilities for receiving and forwarding stock.- Coe v. L. & N. R. Co., 3 Fed. 775.

A railroad may maintain its live stock depot at a particular point although it neither builds nor repairs nor insures the stock pens into which the cattle are unloaded, nor hires or controls the men who do the unloading. Whether the Union Stock Yards at Chicago were in railroad phraseology or in legal definition the depot of the railroad is immaterial; they were and still are in fact the point to which this stock is transported and unloaded under the shippers' contracts with the railroad, and cannot be conducted so as to bring about unreasonable or discriminative charges. -Cattle Raisers' Assn. v. C. B. & Q. R. Co., 11 Inters. Com. R. 277.

That a carrier collects a terminal charge on live stock at one market city and does not at another competing market, is not, per se, an undue preference.- Cattle Raisers' Assn. v. Fort Worth & D. C. R. Co., 7 Inters. Com. R. 513.

[27] Accommodations furnished to negroes.

Whether statutes requiring equal or separate accommodations for white persons and negroes is a regulation of interstate commerce,— see ante, § 25, note [15].

Equality of accommodation does not mean identity of acommodation, but that all paying the same price shall have substantially the same comforts and privileges, though in different cars.- - Murphy v. Western & A. R. Co., 23 Fed. 637; Logwood v. Memphis & C. R. Co., 23 Fed. 318.

A railroad must furnish for colored passengers accommodations precisely equal to those afforded for white passengers holding similar tickets. Beyond this, it has the right to make reasonable regulations for the transporting of passengers. Whether they may classify passengers according to sex or color is expressly left undecided.- Gray v. Cincinnati So. R. Co., 11 Fed. 683.

A carrier cannot discriminate against colored persons in the quality of accommodations afforded them.- Heard v. Ga. R. Co., 2 Inters. Com. R. 392, 508, 3 I. C. C. R. 111.

« iepriekšējāTurpināt »