Lapas attēli
PDF
ePub

Ry. Co. v. Mass., 207 U. S. 79, 52 L. Ed. 111, 28 Sup. Ct. 26. No different rate on return shipment except where shipment refused by consignee. Reduced Rates on Returned Shipments, 19 І. С. С. 409, 416. Not violated by contract with only one auction company. Southwestern Produce Distributor v. W. R. R. Co., 20 I. С. С. 458. Ownership not a reason for different application of rates. California Commercial Ass'n v. Wells, Fargo & Co., 21 I. C. C. 300 citing cases. Section directed against "preferential charges." Commutation Rate case, 21 I. C. C. 428, 431. Cited in discussing demurrage charges. Demurrage Charges in State of California, 25 I. C. С. 314, 323. Section applies to shipment "over the same line, the same distance, under the same circumstances of carriage." Import Rates on Manganese Ore, 25 I. C. C. 633, 688, citing Int. Com. Com. v. B. & O. R. Co., 225 U. S. 326, 56 L. Ed. 1107, 32 Sup. Ct. 742; Wight v. U. S., 167 U. S. 512, 518, 42 L. Ed. 258, 17 Sup. Ct. 822. Discrimination not made by the defendant carrier but by other carrier. Coke Producers Ass'n v. B. & O. R. R. Co., 27 I. C. C. 125, 144, citing Ashland Fire Brick Co. v. S. Ry. Co., 22 I. C. C. 115, 120; Indiana Steel & Wire Co. v. C. R. I. & P. Ry. Co., 16 І. С. С. 155, Railroad Com. of Tenn. v. A. A. R. R. Co., 17 І. С. С. 418. Section discussed and "like" construed. Board of Trade of Chicago v. C. & A. R. R. Co., 27 I. C. C. 530, 534. Difference in switching charges, traffic moving from point of origin violates section. Richmond Chamber of Commerce v. S. A. L. Ry. Co., 30 I. C. C. 552. Section does not limit Elkins Act, Hocking Valley Ry. Co. v. U. S., 210 Fed. 735, 127 C. C. A. 285 affirming. U. S. v. Hocking Valley Ry. Co., 194 Fed. 234, and same question Sunday Creek Co. v. United States, 210 Fed. 747, 127 C. C. A. 285. Violators to pay bonus for erecting plant at particular place. U. S. v. Union Stock & Transit Co., 226 U. Š. 286, 57 L. Ed. 226, 33 Sup. Ct. 83, modlfying same styled case, 192 Fed. 330, Opin. Com. Ct. No. 15, р. 189. Allowance "for transfer" does not violate. American Sugar Refining Co. v. Delaware, L. & W. R. Co., 207 Fed. 733, 125 C. C. A. 251, reversing same styled case, 200 Fed. 652. Rebate from published tariff for haul from mine violates. Mitchell Coal & Coke Co. v. Penn. R. Co., 230 U. S. 247, 57 L. Ed. 1472, 33 Sup. Ct. 916, modifying judgment in same styled case, 183 Fed. 908. Forwarding agent a person within meaning of Section. Int. Com. Com. v. D. L. & W. Ry. Co., 220 U. S. 235, 55 L. Ed. 448, 31 Sup. Ct. 392. Section referred to in its application to the long and short haul clause. U. S. v. A. T. & S. F. Ry. Co., Inter-mountain case. 234 U. S. 476, 58 L. Ed. 1408, 34 Sup. Ct. 986, reversing the Com. Ct. in A. T. & S. F. Ry. Co. v. U. S., 191 Fed. 856. Opin. Com. Court Nos. 50, 51, p. 229 and sustaining the Commission in Railroad Com. of Nevada v. So. Pac. Co., 21 I. C. C. 329, Spokane v. N. Pac. Ry. Co., 21 I. С. С. 400. Section 2 and 3 contrasted. Curry & Whyte v. D. & I. R. R. Co., 32 I. C. C. 162, 168. Section not violated by exacting same rate on cotton packed to a different density. American Round Bale Press Co. v. A. T. & S. F. R. Co., 32 I. С. С. 458, 462.

Notes of Decisions Rendered Since 1915.

Requirements as to shipping containers not shown here to be unlawful. Reynolds Tob. Co. v. So. Ry. Co., 39 I. C. C. 371. Different rates in tanks and barrels not unlawful. Hubinger Bros. Co. v. A. T. & S. F. Ry. Co., 39 I. С. С. 672, but see Rice v. L. & N. R. Co., 1 I. С. С. 503, 1 I. C. R. 354, 376, 443, 722. Benefits incidental to a shipper's location adjacent to a station are not unlawful. St. Louis, Mo. Terminal Regulations, 40 I. C. C. 425. Rule penalizing users of commutation tickets who violated the terms thereof unlawful. New York Commutation Fares. 42 I. C. C. 354. Difference in conditions in Norfolk and Richmond justify different switching practices. Richmond Chamber of Commerce v. S. A. L. R. Co., 44 I. C. C. 455; Seaboard A. L. R. Co. v. United States, 249 Fed. 368. Free lease of factory site unlawful. Central of Ga. R. Co. v. Blount, 238 Fed. 292. That the carriers may violate the anti-trust laws is immaterial when considering a violation of this section. Manufacturers R. Co. v. United States, 246 U. S. 457, 62 L. Ed. 831, 38 Sup. Ct. 383.

§ 346. Undue and Unreasonable Preference Prohibited.That it shall be unlawful for any common carrier subject to the provisions of this act to make or give any undue or unreasonable preference or advantage to any particular person, company, firm, corporation, or locality, or any particular descripton of traffic, in any respect whatsoever, or to subject any particular person, company, firm, corporation, or locality, or any particular description of traffic, to any undue or unreasonable prejudice or disadvantage in any respect what

soever.

First paragraph of section 3 of the original Act, unchanged by Transportation Act 1920.

This provision substantially follows language in section two of English Traffic Act of 1854, and section eleven of the Act of 1873. The English Act provides:

Every railway Company, canal company, and railway and canal company, shall, according to their respective powers, afford all reasonable facilities for the receiving and forwarding and delivering of traffic upon and from the several railways and canals belonging to or worked by such companies respectively, and for the return of carriages, trucks, boats, and other vehicles; and no such company shall make or give any undue or unreasonable preference or advantage to or in favour of any particular person or company, or any particular description of traffic, in any respect whatsoever, nor shall any such company subject any particular person or company, or any particular description of traffic, to any undue or unreasonable prejudice or disadvantage in any respect whatsoever; and every railway company and canal company, and railway and canal company having or working railways or canals which form part of a continuous line of railway or canal or railway and canal communication, or which have the terminus, station, or wharf of the one near the terminus, station, or wharf of the other, shall afford all due and reasonable facilities for receiving and forwarding all the traffic arriving by one of such railways or canals by the other, without any unreasonable delay, and without any such preference or advantage, or prejudice or disadvantage, as aforesaid, and so that no obstruction may be offered to the public desirous of using such railways or canals or railways and canals as a continuous line of communication, and so that all reasonable accommodation may, by means of the railways and canals of the several companies, be at all times afforded to the public in that behalf.

Browne & Theobald's Railway Laws, 405, Halsbury's Laws of England, Vol. 4, p. 76.

Religious teachers in view of section 2 of Act may receive special reduced rates. Re Religious Teachers, 1 I. С. С. 21. Discount may not be given large shippers. Providence. Coal Co. v Providence, etc., R. Co., 1 I. C. C. 107, 1 I. C. R. 316, 363. A carrier operating parallel lines should furnish corresponding advantages to each line. Boards of Trade Union v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 1 I. С. С. 215, 1 I. C. R., 608. Undue preference illegal although not wholly voluntary. Raymond v. Chicago, M. & St. P. R. Co., 1 I. C. C. 230, 1 I. C. R. 627. Unreasonable preference illegal whether accomplished by device or directly. Scofield v. Lake, etc., R. Co., 2 І. С. С. 90, I. C. C. 193, 3 I. C. R. 841, 6 I. C. C. 455. Discrimination is legal reason to affect rates favorably to subscribing territory. Lincoln Board of Trade v. U. P. R. Co., 2 I. C. C. 147, 2 I. C. R. 95. Uniform rate on milk from all stations within two hundred miles of New York not unjust discrimination. Howell v. New York, etc., R. Co., 2 I. C. C. 272, 2 I. C. R. 162. Rule discussed for making rates between communities in accord with section. Detroit Board of Trade v. Grand Trunk Ry., 2 I. С. С. 315, 2 I. C. R. 199. Rates should be known and announced publicly as to all places and persons. Re Tariffs Transcontinental Lines, 2 I. C. C. 324, 2 I. C. R. 203. Rate per ton mile may vary with distance. New Orleans Cotton Exchange v. Cincinnati, etc., R. Co., 2 I. С. С. 375, 2 I. C. R. 289; Same v. Ill. Cent. R. Co., 3 I. C. С. 534, 2 I C. R. 777. Circumstances may be so different as to justify deviations from rule of equal mileage on different branches of the same road, but burden to show such circumstances on the carrier. Logan v. Chicago & N. W. R. Co., 2 I. C. C. 604, 2 I. C. R. 431. Through rates not required to be made on a mileage basis. McMorran v. Grand Trunk R. Co., 3 I. C. C. 252, 2 I. C. R. 604. Separation of races legal but accommodations must be equal. Heard v. Ga. R. Co., 3 I. C. С. 111, 2 I. C. R. 508; see same case, 1 I. C. C. 428, 1 I. C. R. 719; Cozart v. So. Ry. Co., 16 I. C. C. 226; Gaines v. Seaboard A. L. Ry., 16 I. C. C. 471. May make a reasonable difference between C. L. and L. C. L. shipments. Car load ratings should be equal, whether one or more consignors or consignees. Thurber v. New York, etc., R. Co., 3 І. С. С. 473, 2 I. C. R. 742. Special tariffs for emigrants only illegal. Elvey v. Ill. Cent. R. Co., 3 I. C. C. 652, 2 I. C. R. 804. Should be no distinction between the rates and allowances on oil shipped in tank cars and in barrels. Rice v. Western N. Y. etc., R. Co., 4 I. C..C. 131, 3 I. C. R. 162; see also 5 I. С. С. 193, 3 I. C. R. 841, 6 I. C. C. 455. Discrimination is not legalized because investments have been made under it. Board of Trade of Chicago v. Chicago & Alton R. Co., 4 I. С. С. 158, 3 I. C. R. 233. Mere quantity, other than a recognized unit of carriage, no reason for difference in rate. Harvard v. Penn. Co., 4 I. C. С. 212, 3 I. C. R. 257. A differential between wheat and wheat flour long maintained may be continued. Kauffman v. Mo. Pac. R. Co., 4 I. C. C. 417, 3 І. С. R. 400. Rates should be relatively just both as to localities and different kinds of traffic. Squire v. Mich. Cent. R. Co., 4 І. С. С. 611, 3 I. C. R. 515. Water competition when freight can move over the longer distance point justifies a less rate for the longer than the shorter haul. James & Mayer Buggy Co. v. Cincinnati, etc., R. Co., 4 I. C. C. 744, 3 I. C. R. 682. Order not enforced. Int. Com. Com. v. Cincinnati, etc., R. Co., 56 Fed. 925. Circuit court reversed. 13 U. S. App. 720, 162 U. S. 184, 40 L. Ed. 935., 16 Sup. Ct. 700. Section compared with English act. Railroad Com. of Ga. Trammel et al. v. Clyde S. S. Co., 5 I. C. C. 324, 4 I. C. R. 120, 140. Order not enforced. Int. Com. Com. v. Western & A. R. Co., 88 Fed. 186, 93 Fed. 83, 35 C. C. A. 226, 181 U. S. 29, 45 L. Ed. 729, 21 Sup. Ct. 512. Rates on similar commodities should not greatly differ. Michigan Box Co. v. Flint, etc., R. Co., 6 І. С. С. 335. "Unreasonable," "unjust" and similar terms used in section defined. Daniels v. Chicago etc., R. Co., 6 І. С. С. 458. Excess of manufacturing cost at one point over another should not affect the relative rates. Colorado Fuel & Iron Co. v. So. Pac. Co., 6 I. C. C. 488. Order not enforced. So. Pac. Co. v. Fuel Co., 101 Fed. 779, 42 C. C. A. 12. Terms used in section discussed and held to imply comparison. Page v. Delaware, etc., R. Co., 6 I. C. C. 548; see 6 I. C. С. 148, 4 I. C. R. 425; Int. Com. Com. v. Delaware, etc., R. Co. 64 Fed.

« iepriekšējāTurpināt »