Lapas attēli
PDF
ePub

thereby deprived the complaining shipper of the facilities he should have had for shipping his grain, he is entitled to such damages as he may have sustained therefor.-Galena & C. U. R. Co. v. Rae, 18 Ill. 488.

[blocks in formation]

Complainants brought an action in a state court for damages for discrimination in furnishing cars. Later they brought a proceeding for reparation before the Interstate Commerce Commission, because of the same abuses.- Held, that the pendency of the action in a state court did not bar the latter proceeding, though its pendency in a federal court would have had that effect.- Gallogly v. C. H. & D. R. Co., 11 Inters. Com. R. 1.

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

In an action by a shipper against a carrier for refusing to furnish cars, it is not competent for it to prove the consignee's delays in unloading previous shipments. The carrier's remedy is against such consignee for demurrage.- Houston, E. & W. T. R. Co. v. Campbell, 91 Tex. 551, 45 S. W. 2, 43 L. R. A. 225n.

In an action for damages for failure to furnish cars, the carrier cannot contend that the cars were desired for shipments outside the state, unless its legal right to refuse such a request was asserted at the time the cars were asked for.- Houston & T. C. R. Co. v. Buchanan, 11 Tex. Ct. R. 1005, 84 S. W. 1073.

[blocks in formation]

An allegation that timber was placed near carrier's side track, and that a freight conductor and two station agents of carrier were requested to furnish a car for its shipment, does not show tender or receipt, enabling recovery for failure to transport.- St. Louis, I. M. & S. R. Co. v. Lee, 69 Ark. 584, 65 S. W. 99.

In an action to recover for failure to furnish cars, an allegation that plaintiff made demand of defendant is sufficient to admit proof as to the agent upon whom the demand was made, and that he had authority to furnish cars.- St. Louis, I. M. & S. R. Co. v. Wynne Hoop Co., 81 Ark. 373, 99 S. W. 375.

In an action to recover for the failure of a railroad to furnish cars, the allegation in the complaint that "the plaintiff had placed a lot of elm saw logs along defendant's tracks for shipment, and had made often and repeated demands of defendant for cars upon which to load and ship out logs" sufficiently alleges a tender for shipment and a demand for cars.St. Louis, I. M. & S. R. Co. v. Wynne Hoop Co., 81 Ark. 373, 99 S. W. 375.

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

In an action to recover for failure of a railroad to furnish cars on demand, evidence was introduced by the railroad tending to show a sufficient equipment for the usual demands, and that the failure to furnish cars was due to an unusual press of business.- Held, that the questions whether the railroad was properly equipped to supply the real demand; whether there was an unprecedented demand which could not reasonably have been anticipated; whether the railroad was permitting its cars to be in the service of other roads to obtain rent therefrom instead of using them to supply its public demands, or whether they were unavoidably out of reach at the time of the alleged unprecedented demand, were questions for the jury.--St. Louis S. W. R. Co. v. Leder Bros., 79 Ark. 59, 95 S. W. 170.

[blocks in formation]

Reparation for discrimination in furnishing cars should not include probabilities of profit, but should include all that may with reasonable certainty be directly charged to such unfair treatment.-Eaton v. C. H. & D. R. Co., 11 Inters. Com. R. 619.

The petitioner had the carrier build side tracks to his mill, so that unloading could be made directly from the cars. For other mills, which did not have such side tracks, the carriers paid the cost of cartage. Because of the failure of the company to furnish cars on the side track, he had to cart to and from the main line.- Held, that his measure of damages was the amount per load paid by the carrier to the other shippers.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.

The measure of damages for failing to furnish cars as agreed is the difference between the value of the cattle at the place of destination when they did arrive there and when they should have arrived there.- Texas & P. R. Co. v. Nicholson, 61 Tex. 491.

[24] Indictment.

An indictment for an unreasonable discrimination by failure to give a shipper his proper share of cars, which charges the offense in the language of the statute but does not describe the offenses intended to be alleged is insufficient.-U. S. v. B. & O. R. Co., 153 Fed. 997.

[25] Regulation of special services - Definitions.

What constitutes "switching," see ante, § 2, note [9].

Switching of cars not interstate commerce,- see ante, § 25, note [2]. Right to charge higher rate to cover cost of switching,- see ante, § 26. note [35].

What is a reasonable terminal charge,— see ante, § 26, note [37]. Rules and regulations as to storage and demurrage should be stated in schedules, see ante, § 28, note [18].

Discriminations in terminal charges,- see ante, § 31, note [62]. Switching charges which do not pay cost of service not enforceable,— see post, § 49, note [32].

"Switching" or "transfer service" occurs only in connection with a "transportation" of the freight over a railway and where the entire service is rendered on spur-tracks of a railroad company it is 'transportation" and not "switching" for which transportation and not switching charges may be made.- Dixon v. Central of Ga. R. Co., 110 Ga. 173, 35 S. E. 369.

The phrase "for more than five days," in a demurrage statute, means five full days, five running days, Sundays, etc., to be counted.- Branch v. Wilmington & W. R. Co., 77 N. C. 347.

[26]

Right to exact demurrage charges.

A railroad may make a regulation compelling the payment of demurrage charges if goods are not unloaded within a certain time, provided the time allowed for unloading is reasonable and the charge is not excessive. -Miller v. Ga. R. & B. Co., 88 Ga. 563, 15 S. E. 316, 18 L. R. A. 323.

After allowing a shipper a reasonable time to unload, a carrier is entitled to a reasonable car service, storage or demurrage fee, and to a lien on the freight for such charges.- Schumacher v. Ch. & N. W. R. Co., 207 Ill. 199, 69 N. E. 825, affg. s. c. 108 Ill. App. 520, distinguishing Chicago & N. W. R. Co. v. Jenkins, 103 Ill. 588.

The right to demurrage does not exist in favor of railroads.- Chicago & N. W. R. Co. v. Jenkins, 103 Ill. 588; distinguished, 207 Ill. 199, 69 N. E. 825.

[27]

Reasonableness of demurrage charges.

Duty of carrier to make reasonable demurrage and storage charges,— see ante, § 26, note [29].

Discriminations in demurrage charges,- see ante, § 31, note [62]. Proper basis for computing demurrage charges,- see post, § 49, note [40].

A demurrage charge of $1 per day for the time a car loaded remains standing on the tracks of the carrier before being unloaded, after the first 96 hours, deducting holidays, Sundays and rainy days, is not unreasonable.- Michie v. N. Y. N. H. & H. R. Co., 151 Fed. 694.

A demurrage charge is not properly based upon the fair rental value of the car. It is in the nature of a penalty, to insure the consignee will

promptly receive his freight.- Kehoe v. Charleston & W. C. R. Co., 11 Inters. Com. R. 166.

One dollar per day is the demurrage charge universally named by car service associations in all parts of the country in case of car-load freight, and the same amount is generally, if not uniformly, fixed by railroad commissions invested with power to make rates and regulations. Such a charge is just and reasonable, upon the facts of this case.- Kehoe v. Charleston & W. C. R. Co., 11 Inters. Com. R. 166.

In demurrage charges, refunds on account of delays because of weather must be bona fide and not arbitrary.- Pennsylvania Millers' Assn. v. Phila. & R. R. Co., 8 Inters. Com. R. 531.

The charging of demurrage, before a reasonable time for loading or unloading has elapsed, would, so far as that charge covers time which should be embraced in a reasonable time, be an unjust or unreasonable charge for a 66 service rendered in connection with the transportation of property" or "for the storage or handling" of such property.- Pennsylvania Millers' Assn. v. Phila. & R. R. Co., 8 Inters. Com. R. 531.

A demurrage charge of $1 per day for each car is not necessarily unreasonable because the cars vary in capacity.- Miller v. Ga. R. & B. Co., 88 Ga. 563, 15 S. E. 316, 18 L. R. A. 323.

Charging a shipper $1 per day for the use of a car during the time the law allows him for loading it, is extortionate.- St. Louis S. W. R. Co. v. Rutherford, 16 Tex. Ct. R. 179, 96 S. W. 73.

[28]

[ocr errors]

Allowance of time for unloading.

The differences in the length of time before demurrage charges begin should not be undue, as between various localities.- Pennsylvania Millers' Assn. v. Phila. & R. R. Co., 8 Inters. Com. R. 531.

Forty-eight hours is an unreasonably small allowance of time for unloading where any portion of it has to be consumed in attending to the preliminaries necessarily antecedent to the actual work of unloading. The period also should not begin to run until the cars have been placed for unloading and notice of the placing has been given to the proper party. - Pennsylvania Millers' Assn. v. Phila. & R. R. Co., 8 Inters. Com. R. 531.

[ocr errors]

Allowance of 96 hours free car service on one commodity and only 48 hours on another, is not an unlawful discrimination.- Pennsylvania Millers' Assn. v. Phila. & R. R. Co., 8 Inters. Com. R. 531.

A 96-hour free car service rule at a given point is not discriminative, if it is not allowed to one shipper of a given commodity and denied to another.- Pennsylvania Millers' Assn. v. Phila. & R. R. Co., 8 Inters. Com. R. 531.

In determining what is a reasonable time for unloading, before a demurrage charge can begin, the distance which the freight must be hauled

by the consignee is not an element for consideration.- Schumacher v. Ch. & N. W. R. Co., 207 Ill 199, 69 N. E. 825, affg. s. c. 108 Ill. App. 520, distinguishing Chicago & N. W. R. Co. v. Jenkins, 103 Ill. 588.

[blocks in formation]

A demurrage claim, though valid, does not give the carrier a lien on the goods, but he must enforce his claim by an action for breach of contract, not by detention of the goods.- Crommelin v. N. Y. & H. R. Co., 4 Keyes (N. Y.), 90, affg. s. c. 10 Bosw. (N. Y.) 77.

A carrier has no lien for demurrage on property in cars transported over its lines.-Wallace v. B. & O. R. Co., 216 Pa. 311, 65 Atl. 665.

A carrier has no lien on freight for demurrage for delay in unloading, and no right to retain possession of the goods until it is paid.— Nicallette Lumber Co. v. People's Coal Co., 213 Pa. 379, 62 Atl. 1060.

[blocks in formation]

A car of coal not yet delivered to the consignee, but standing on the track of the railway in the condition in which it was brought from another state, is still under exclusive federal regulation.- McNeill v. So. R. Co., 202 U. S. 543, 26 Sup. Ct. R. (U. S.) 722.

Carloads of coal shipped from one state to another remain objects of interstate commerce until delivered to the consignee. Therefore an order of the state corporation commission of North Carolina directing the carrier to place such cars on a certain track for unloading, as requested by the consignee, is not within the jurisdiction of such commission.- Southern R. Co. v. Greenboro I. & C. Co., 134 Fed. 82; affd. 202 U. S. 543, 26 Sup. Ct. R. (U. S.) 722.

The switching of cars by a carrier is a local service, the charges for which a state commission may regulate even as to cars destined interstate.- Chicago, M. & St. P. R. Co. v. Becker, 32 Fed. 849.

A car being hauled from one of the carrier's yards to another, preparatory to going upon the main line bound for its destination in another state, is engaged in interstate commerce.-U. S. v. P. C. C. & St. L. R. Co., 11 Inters. Com. R. 696.

If a carload of hay is consigned to a particular warehouse, the carrier delivers it at the warehouse, if upon its tracks, or to the proper switching road if not. If no point of delivery is named in the consignment, and no directions have been given before the arrival of the car, the carrier places it upon its team track. When the car has been disposed of in the above manner, the service of the railway in respect of that shipment is

« iepriekšējāTurpināt »