Lapas attēli
PDF
ePub

Even after the tracks of two railroads have been physically connected the making of joint rates is a matter primarily for the companies interested. Wisconsin, M. & P. R. Co. v. Jacobson, 179 U. S. 287, 21 Sup. Ct. R. (U. S.) 115.

The interchange of traffic between connecting lines constituting a through route is always a matter of contract between the several companies operating such lines; and such arrangements are, in the absence of express agreement to the contrary, terminable at the pleasure of either party.- Kentucky & I. Bridge Co. v. L. & N. R. Co., 37 Fed. 567, 2 L. R. A. 289.

A railroad that has a running arrangement over the tracks of another is not compelled to receive or discharge local traffic along the lines of the latter, its obligations being wholly those arising from the contract.Alford v. Ch. R. I. & P. R. Co., 2 Inters. Com. R. 582, 771, 3 I. C. C. R. 473.

A rule of an express company provided that agents at points where other express companies had offices, must decline to receive goods to be transported to a point where such other companies had exclusive offices.- Held, that such a rule was not justified, especially where the route of the company which had an exclusive office at the destination point was circuitous and much speedier service could be rendered by the company making such rule, by forming a through route with other express companies reaching the destination point, and where it appeared. that direct through routes and joint tariff rates had been established by the railroads over which express matter would be sent by the latter route. Herendeen v. U. S. Exp. Co. Decided by the N. Y. Public Service Commission of the Second District, Feb. 18, 1908.

[14] Consent of carrier to making of through route or rate.

One carrier cannot make a through route or rate over the lines of a connecting carrier without the latter's consent.- New York, N. H. & H. R. Co. v. Platt, 7 Inters. Com. R. 323.

[15] Charter provisions.

A power given in a charter of a railroad to connect or unite with other roads merely refers to a physical connection of the tracks, and does not authorize the purchase, or even the lease of such roads or road, or any joinder of franchises.- Louisville & N. R. Co. v. Kentucky, 161 U. S. 677, 16 Sup. Ct. R. (U. S.) 714, affg. s. c. 97 Ky. 675, 17 Ky. L. R. 427, 31 S. W. 476.

The provision of the charter of a railroad that it shall be the duty of such company to permit any other railroad to form running connections with it on fair and equitable terms includes only such arrangements as to the time of arrival and departure of trains, and as to stations, plat

[graphic]

forms and other facilities, as will enable companies desiring to connect to do so without detriment or serious inconvenience.- Oregon S. L. & U. N. R. Co. v. No. Pac. R. Co., 61 Fed. 158, affg. s. c. 51 Fed. 465. A clause of the charter of a railroad which authorizes other railroads to make connections with its line of road, authorizes merely a physical connection and not a business connection, requiring an interchange of traffic at the point of junction.- Kentucky & I. Bridge Co. v. L. & N. R. Co., 37 Fed. 567, 2 L. R. A. 289.

[16] What lines.

constitutes 8 discrimination

between connecting

Secrecy of a rate not the test of its lawfulness,- see ante, § 31, note [12].

Where a railroad which has extended the same rates to goods transported over two connecting carriers, withdraws the former rate as to one only and makes a greater rate on goods transferred over that line, there is an unjust discrimination.- Augusta S. R. Co. v. Wrightsville & T. R. Co., 74 Fed. 522.

Where a company operates a steamboat line and a railroad as a continuous line, the refusal of such company to permit a rival steamboat company to land at its dock is not an unjust discrimination within the meaning of Interst. Com. Act, § 3, forbidding discrimination between connecting carriers.-Ilwaco R. & N. Co. v. Oregon S. L. & U. N. R. Co., 57 Fed. 673, revg. s. c. 51 Fed. 611.

Analysis of what constitutes discrimination between connecting carriers.- Little Rock & M. R. Co. v. E. Tenn. V. & G. R. Co., 47 Fed. 771; appeal dismissed, 159 U. S. 698, 16 Sup. Ct. R. (U. S.) 189.

It is not an unjust discrimination or preference to make through rates with one stearaboat line and refuse to make such rates with another.Capehart v. L. & N. R. Co., 3 Inters. Com. R. 278, 4 I. C. C. R. 265.

A contract between a railroad and one of two rival steamboat companies whereby that company has exclusive use of the railroad's terminal facilities does not violate Interst. Com. Act, § 3.-Alexandria Bay Co. v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. Co., 18 App. Div. (N. Y.) 527, 45 N. Y. Supp. 1091.

Issuing through bills of lading to one carrier and refusing the same to another is not an unjust discrimination.- State v. Wrightsville & T. R. Co., 104 Ga. 437, 30 S. E. 891.

[17] Justification and excuse for refusal.

The receiver of a railroad cannot refuse to receive from and deliver to a connecting road loaded or empty freight cars because by doing so his own road will become involved in a strike in progress on the connecting road.- Beers v. Wabash, St. L. & P. R. Co., 34 Fed. 244.

If a railroad company cannot secure other than an unreasonably low share of the joint rate to seaport on another road, it may be justified in declining to join in such a rate, especially when it can take the traffic to a seaport reached by its own road; but a carrier engaged in transportation over the through line finds no such justification when it is able to secure for itself a share of the joint rate which fully equals the rate established by it for purely local service over like distances on its own road.- Savannah Bureau v. L. & N. R. Co., 8 Inters. Com. R. 377.

That the public has adequate facilities without such interchange of traffic, does not justify refusal to interchange, as all railroads created by public authority are conclusively deemed to be public conveniences.Kentucky & I. Bridge Co. v. L. & N. R. Co., 1 Inters. Com. R. 703, 715, 2 Inters. Com. R. 102, 2 I. C. C. R. 162.

A railroad is not excused from obeying a constitutional provision requiring all railroads to receive freight from and deliver to connecting carriers at points of physical connection, merely because by doing so it would be subjected to inconvenience or increased expense.- Louisville & N. R. Co. v. Central Stockyards Co., 30 Ky. L. R. 18, 97 S. W. 778.

That it would reduce the carrier's revenues so as to make part or all its business unprofitable, is not a valid defense to an order of a state commission for a connecting switch.-Jacobson v. Wisconsin, M. & P. R. Co., 71 Minn. 514, 74 N. W. 893.

[18] What are connecting or through lines.

A through line for traffic, through rates, through bills of lading, etc., do not necessarily follow from a physical connection of tracks. Whether a connecting business shall be done upon them after the union depends on legislative regulation or contract obligation.-Atchison, T. & S. F. R. Co. v. D. & N. O. R. Co., 110 U. S. 667, 4 Sup. Ct. R. (U. S.) 185, revg. s. c. 13 Feb. 546.

Forming "a continuous line of railroad with each other" means a line or route extending and continuing in substantially the same general direction.- People v. Boston, H. T. & W. R. Co., 12 Abb. N. C. (N. Y.) 230.

Mere switch connections are not connecting lines.- Gulf & I. R. Co. v. Texas & N. O. R. Co., 54 S. W. 1031; affd. 93 Tex. 482, 56 S. W. 328.

[19] Compelling connections.

If a switch connection is within the power of the state commission to order, it may take into account the benefit to both interstate and state traffic in determining the necessity therefor.-Jacobson v. Wisconsin, M. & P. R. Co., 71 Minn. 514, 74 N. W. 893.

[20] Right to make connections.

A contract was entered into between three street railroad companies by which it was agreed that the tracks of two of the companies were to be

[graphic]

connected by a curve to be built by the third company in consideration of the right granted it to use the tracks of the first mentioned companies and the connecting curve.- Held, that the third company had the same right to construct the connecting curve that the other two companies had.- Kunz v. Brooklyn Heights R. Co., 25 Misc. (N. Y.) 334, 54 N. Y. Supp. 187.

[21] Bill of lading as a facility which may be compelled.

General duty of carrier to give bill of lading,- see post, § 38, note [1].

Bill of lading is a "facility," the furnishing of which can be compelled by mandamus, under the section of the Interstate Commerce Act requiring carriers to furnish "equal facilities" to connecting carriers.Augusta S. R. Co. v. Wrightsville & T. R. Co., 74 Fed. 522.

A carrier cannot be compelled by a shipper to give a bill of lading beyond its own line.-Lotspiech v. Central R. & B. Co., 73 Ala. 306.

[22] Honoring of tickets.

In the absence of some arrangement between connecting lines one line is under no obligation to honor tickets issued by the other.- Oregon S. L. & U. N. R. Co. v. No. Pac. R. Co., 61 Fed. 158, affg. s. c. 51 Fed. 465.

A passenger ticket over connecting roads is a reasonable facility of travel.- Chicago & A. R. Co. v. Pa. R. Co., 1 Inters. Com. R. 291, 293, 357, 1 I. C. C. R. 86.

A regulation by a railroad that it would not sell tickets over a connecting road unless the latter would abstain from paying commissions to the former's agents on sales made, is reasonable, and so valid.-Chicago & A. R. Co. v. Pa R. Co., 1 Inters. Com. R. 291, 293, 357, 1 I. C. C. R. 86.

[23] Construction of statutes and decrees - In general.

A decree giving one railroad joint and equal rights in the use of the right of way, terminal facilities, etc., does not convey the right to use the latter's industrial tracks, facilities, etc.- St. Louis, K. C. & R. Co. v. Wabash R. Co., 152 Fed. 849.

A decree awarding a railway company the right to the use of terminal facilities along the right of way of another company does not include use of industrial tracks and terminal facilities subsequently constructed "off" such right of way.- Central Trust Co. v. Wabash R. Co., 144 Fed. 476.

The provision of the Interst. Com. Act, § 3, that "this shall not be construed as requiring any such common carrier to give the use of its

tracks or terminal facilities to another carrier engaged in like business," refers only to facilities for interchanging traffic between connecting lines. - Chicago F. P. Cov. Co. v. Ch. & N. W. R. Co., 8 Inters. Com. R. 316. A provision that a carrier shall receive, deliver, transfer and transport all freight at any point where there is physical connection with the tracks of connecting carriers, can not be limited to mean that the carrier shall be required to transfer and deliver only such cars as it may receive from such connecting carrier.- Louisville & N. R. Co. v. Central Stockyards Co., 30 Ky. L. R. 18, 97 S. W. 778.

A statute requiring ample facilities for transfer of cars, etc., at intersections does not apply to crossings of private tracks.- State v. Willmar & S. F. R. Co., 88 Minn. 448, 93 N. W. 112.

[24]

Meaning of term "transfer of freight, passengers or express matter."

The term "transfer of freight, passengers or express matter" from one carrier to another includes the transfer of cars from one road to another, as well as the transfer of freight or passengers from the cars of one road to the cars of another.- Council Bluffs v. K. C. St. J. & C. B. R. Co., 45 Iowa, 338.

[25] Routing of goods by initial carrier.

Reservation by carrier of right to route goods,—see ante, § 28, note [28].

Routing of goods as undue prejudice against shipper,- see ante, § 32, note [21].

While it is the general duty of a carrier to forward goods by the usual and most direct route, the carrier may, in case of necessity, resort to such other reasonably direct route as is available under existing conditions to carry the freight to its destination.- Empire State Cattle Co. v. A. T. & S. F. R. Co., 210 U. S. 1, 28 Sup. Ct. R. (U. S.) 607, affg. s. c. 147 Fed. 457.

At common law a carrier is not bound to carry beyond its own lines; if it contracts to carry beyond that, it may, in the absence of statutory regulations, choose the routes it will use in so doing.-Atchison, T. & S. F. R. Co. v. D. & N. O. R. Co., 110 U. S. 667, 4 Sup. Ct. R. (U. S.) 185, revg. 13 Fed. 546.

[26] Goods to be forwarded in order of receipt.

In the forwarding of freight received from connecting lines it is proper that cars should be forwarded as far as practicable in the order of their receipt, so that there should be no unreasonable discrimination or preference which might be avoided.- Daish v. Cleveland, A. & C. R. Co., 9 Inters. Com. R. 513.

« iepriekšējāTurpināt »