Lapas attēli
PDF
ePub

criminatory, to determine and prescribe what shall be a just and reasonable maximum rate to be thereafter charged.-Jewett v. Ch. M. & St. R. R. Co., 156 Fed. 160.

A state commission may fix different passenger rates for different carriers.- Houston & T. C. R. Co. v. Storey, 149 Fed. 499.

The Interstate Commerce Commission has no power to determine with reference to the past what was a reasonable rate and thereupon declare that the rates should not in future be raised above that which it has adjudged to be reasonable.- Southern Pac. R. Co. v. Colorado F. & I. Co., 101 Fed. 779.

Federal courts have no power to fix a schedule of rates for interstate carriers.- Southern Pac. R. Co. v. Colorado F. & I. Co., 101 Fed. 779.

The authority to "regulate" street railway corporations does not vest a city with power to fix rates thereon.- Old Colony T. Co. v. City of Atlanta, 83 Fed. 39; affd. 88 Fed. 859.

The Interstate Commerce Commission has no power to fix rates, and especially no power to order that rates from a given point to one city shall bear a specified relation to rates from that point to another city.— Interst. Com. Commission v. L. & N. R. Co., 73 Fed. 409.

The Interstate Commerce Act is not to be construed so as to abridge or destroy the common law right of the carrier to make contracts, and adopt proper business methods, further than the terms and recognized purposes of the act may require.- Interst. Com. Commission v. L. & N. R. Co., 73 Fed. 409.

The Interstate Commerce Commission now has the power to fix a rate which the carrier may not exceed.- Cattle Raisers' Assn. v. Mo. K. & T. R. Co., 12 Inters. Com. R. 5.

The Interstate Commerce Commission has no authority to fix a minimum rate.- Savannah Bureau v. Charleston & S. R. Co., 7 Inters. Com. R. 458; Commercial Club v. Ch. R. I. & P. R. Co., 6 Inters. Com. R. 647; Cincinnati Freight Bureau v. C. N. O. & T. P. R. Co., 7 Inters. Com. R. 180.

The Interstate Commerce Commission cannot order unreasonably low rates to be increased.— In re Chicago, St. P. & K. C. R. Co., 2 Inters. Com. R. 55, 137, 2 I. C. C. R. 231.

The power to fix rates or compensation means only the power to fix reasonable rates and just compensation.- Spring Valley W. W. v. San Francisco, 82 Cal. 286, 22 Pac. 910, 6 L. R. A. 756.

A commission may fix rates, etc., through jurisdiction over a corporation which controls another railway corporation under a contract which gives the former the right, license or permission to operate the latter.State v. Seaboard Air L. R. Co., 48 Fla. 129, 37 So. 314; affd. 203 U. S. 261, 27 Sup. Ct. R. (U. S.) 109.

Where the charter of a railroad provides that the company may regulate its tolls and rates and that the legislature may alter or reduce its rates but not so as to produce less than 15 per cent. on the capital stock, and said charter is later amended by a provision that the company may make all rules and regulations "not repugnant to the constitution and laws of the United States and of this state," a statute providing that railroads shall not charge unjust nor unreasonable rates and creating a commission with power to make a schedule of maximum rates for railroads, is not unconstitutional as impairing the obligation of contract.- Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co. v. Jones, 149 Ill 361, 37 N. F. 247, 24 L. R. A. 141. A state law requiring street railway companies to transport public school children at half fare is constitutional.— Commonwealth v. Conn. Valley St. R. Co., Mass. 82 N. E. 19; Commonwealth v. Interstate

Con. St. R. Co., 187 Mass. 436, 73 N. E. 530.

The Massachusetts Railroad Commission is not empowered to consider the general subject of rates, but particular rates upon the complaint of any shipper.- Littlefield v. Fitchburg R. Co., 158 Mass. 1, 32 N. E. 859.

Under the statutes of Nebraska providing for a board of transportation, and prohibiting unjust and unreasonable rates, such board may determine what is a just and reasonable charge on all railroads within the state in advance of the rendition of the service by the roads.- State v. Fremont, E. & M. V. R. Co., 22 Neb. 313, 35 N. W. 118.

The North Carolina Corporation Commission may prescribe freight rates.- Corporation Commission v. Seaboard Air L. R. Co., 127 N. C. 283, 37 S. E. 266.

[blocks in formation]

The Interstate Commerce Commission possesses no power or authority to pass upon the lawfulness of rates merely threatened to be put in effect by a carrier.-Jewett v. Ch. M. & St. P. R. Co., 156 Fed. 160.

[blocks in formation]

A board of railroad commissioners cannot enter into any compromise or arrangement with a carrier that will sanction or continue rates within the state which are not reasonable and just.- Nebraska v. Fremont E. & N. V. K. Co., 23 Neb. 117, 36 N. W. 305.

The Nebraska Railroad Commission found that certain rates within the state were 33% per cent too high. It then made an arrangement with the roads whereby, in consideration of their reducing certain interstate rates to Chicago, the Commission accepted a less reduction than 33% per cent. on the intra-state rates.- Held, that such an arrangement was unlawful.-State v. Fremont E. & M. V. R. Co., 23 Neb. 117, 36 N. W. 305.

[9]

Rates for elevation, weighing, etc.

A statute regulating the rates and management of elevators is a proper exercise of the police power of a state, and neither denies the owners the equal protection of law nor deprive them of property without due process of law.- Brass v. Stoeser, 153 U. S. 391, 14 Sup. Ct. R. (U. S.) 857. An act of the New York Legislature, fixing maximum charges for receiving, elevating, weighing and discharging grain is a legitimate exercise of the police power of the state over business affected with a public interest, and the services rendered are not interstate commerce.- Budd v. New York, 143 U. S. 517, 12 Sup. Ct. R. (U. S.) 468, affg. s. c. sub. nom. People v. Budd, 117 N. Y. 1, 22 N. E. 670, 682, 5 L. R. A. 559n.

An act fixing a maximum charge for elevating, receiving, weighing and discharging grain by elevators and warehouses, is within the police power of the state.- Matter of Annon, 50 Hun (N. Y.), 413.

[10]

Switching and demurrage charges.

Provisions of the Interstate Commerce Act requiring rates for the transportation and for the "receiving, delivering, storage or handling" of property by an interstate carrier, to be reasonable, are sufficiently broad to cover demurrage charges.— Michie v. N. Y. N. H. & H. R. Co., 151 Fed. 694.

A state commission may regulate switching charges, for it is a local service, and has no reference to interstate shipments.- Chicago, M. & St. P. R. Co. v. Becker, 32 Fed. 849.

The Interstate Commerce Commission has no authority to fix rules and regulations governing reciprocal demurrage.- Mason v. Ch. R. I. & P. R. Co., 12 Inters. Com. R. 70.

The Interstate Commerce Commission has power to regulate demurrage charges.- Pennsylvania Millers' Assn. v. Phila. & R. R. Co., 8 Inters. Com. R. 531.

[blocks in formation]

A statute fixing ferry fares is constitutional.-Parker v. Metropolitan R. Co., 109 Mass. 506.

[blocks in formation]

If a carrier treats the compression of cotton as an integral part of the service it renders the shipper, the Interstate Commerce Commission has jurisdiction to regulate such compression and the charges therefor.Muskogee Club v. Mo. K. & T. R. Co., 12 Inters. Com. R. 356.

The Interstate Commerce Commission has the same jurisdiction to inquire into the justice and reasonableness of icing charges, etc., as of any other charge for the transportation of passengers or property.- Matter of Charges for Transportation of Fruit, 11 Inters. Com. R. 129.

Appellant was a terminal railroad connecting two trunk lines, and performing switching to and from factories. It placed cars on scales on private tracks, ready for weighing.- Held, that this placing of cars on scales was within the scope of public service regulation as to rates, etc., by the state corporation commission.- Norfolk & P. R. Co. v. Commonwealth, 103 Va. 289, 49 S. E. 39.

[13]

- Compelling furnishing of facilities.

Power of Commission to require interchange of cars by a railroad corporation and a street railroad corporation,- see also ante, § 35. Duty of carrier to furnish passengers with seats,- see ante, § 26, note

[16].

Determination as to fulfillment by carrier of duty to furnish safe and adequate facilities,-see ante, § 26, note [19].

Power to compel furnishing of special kinds of cars and equipment,— see ante, § 37, note [31].

Power of Commission as to stations and waiting rooms,- see post, § 50, note [4].

An order of the North Carolina Corporation Commission requiring a railroad to deliver cars from another state to the consignee on a private siding beyond its own right of way is void. Whether such an order would be valid, if applied only to state business, not decided.- McNeill v. So. R. Co., 202 U. S. 543, 26 Sup. Ct. R. (U. S.) 722.

A Texas statute providing that, upon application by a shipper in due form, the carrier shall furnish sufficient cars, etc., regardless of every other consideration except strikes and other public calamities, is beyond the regulative powers of the state, in so far as it requires the furnishing of cars for shipments out of the state.- Houston & T. C. R. Co. v. Mayes, 201 U. S. 321, 26 Sup. Ct. R. (U. S.) 491.

Under the Interstate Commerce Act as it stood Nov. 17, 1902, the Interstate Commerce Commission had no power to compel carriers to give to shippers the privilege of milling in transit.- Diamond Mills v. Boston & M. R. Co., 9 Inters. Com. R. 311.

A state statute compelling express companies to extend equal facilities to all responsible consignors, including other express companies, is valid. -Am. Express Co. v. So. Ind. Express Co., 167 Ind. 292, 78 N. E. 1021.

[14]

Supervision over operation of road.

· Conduct of business in general.

Power of Commission to relieve carriers from the necessity of having sufficient cars and motive power,- see also, ante, § 37.

Power of Commission to make regulations for the distribution of freight cars to shippers, the switching and loading of the same, and demurrage charges thereon,- see also ante, § 37.

Power of Commission to order repairs or changes in tracks, switches, motive power, etc.,—see also ante, § 50.

Power of Commission to order changes in time schedules or the running of additional cars and trains,— see also post, § 51.

Power of Commissions to prescribe the manner in which accounts shall be kept by carriers,— see post, § 52.

When Commission will interfere with method of operation,- see post, note [30].

Statute forbidding transportation of cotton by night not a regulation of interstate commerce,— see ante, § 25, note [16].

Whether compelling the transfer of cars by connecting carriers is a regulation of interstate commerce,- see ante, § 25, note [16]. Whether requiring interstate carriers to file reports is a regulation of interstate commerce,-- see ante, § 25, note [16].

Whether statute forbidding transportation on Sunday is a regulation of interstate commerce,- see ante, § 25, note [16].

Power to compel the giving of sidetrack connections,- see ante, § 27, note [3].

Power to compel interchange of cars by connecting carriers,- see ante, § 35, note [9].

Power of state commission to compel installation of switches to facilitate transfer of cars by connecting carriers,—see ante, § 35, note [10]. Consideration of state and interstate business in determining whether switch uniting connecting lines will be ordered,— see ante, § 35, note [19].

Power to determine terms on which railroads intersect,- see ante, § 35, note [34].

Power to fix rules governing demurrage,― see ante § 37, note [31]. Power to prevent delay in transporting goods,- see ante, § 38, note

[31]

Power over crossings and intersectons,- see post, § 50, note [1]. Power of Commission to control method of keeping books and ac

[blocks in formation]

The term "public convenience" and the like are not to be construed as giving the government the right to assume the management of a railroad and perform the functions of its officers.- Lake Shore & M. S. R. Co. v. Smith, 173 U. S. 684, 19 Sup. Ct. R. (U. S.) 565, revg. 114 Mich. 460, 72 N. W. 328.

A Louisiana statute forbidding discrimination on account of race or color on railroads within the state, is an unconstitutional interference with interstate commerce, in so far as it relates to interstate traffic.- Hall v. DeCuir, 95 U. S. 485, revg. s. c. 27 La. Ann. 1.

Wisconsin L. 1905, p. 13, ch. 19, as amended by Laws Special Session 1905, p. 19, ch. 12, creating a Superior Grain and Warehouse Commis

« iepriekšējāTurpināt »