its trains against its objection.-Worcester | mileage at the rate of three-fourths of a Excursion Car Co. v. Pennsylvania Rd. Co., cent per mile. Complainant was the own(1890) 3 I. C. C. R. 577, 2 I. C. R. 792. re er of special live-stock cars which it leased to shippers for the transportation of their stock. Defendants received and transported complainant's cars, but fused to pay mileage therefor. On complaint that such refusal amounted to unjust discrimination, held, that the claim of complainant was matter of contract and agreement between the parties which did not involve the feature of unjust discrimination.-Burton Stock Car Co. v. Chicago, B. & Q. Rd. Co. et al., (1887) 1 I. C. C. R. 132, 1 I. C. R. 329. 28. A railroad company arranged with a live-stock express company to use a certain number of the latter's cars in transporting live-stock and to pay mileage therefor. Because of difference in construction between such cars and those of other companies the railroad company was enabled to use them for coal traffic when not in use for carrying live-stock. On application for mandamus under section 23 of the Act to compel the railroad company to transport relator's stock in cars owned by another company at the same rates and upon as favorable terms as those afforded when using the cars of the express com- CARRIER MAY REFUSE TO HAUL, 32. pany, held, that the refusal of the railroad company to haul relator's stock in other cars than those of the express company was not an unjust discrimination as against relator or the company owning such other cars, since the attending circumstances and conditions in the two cases were not substantially similar.-United States v. Delaware, L. & W. Rd. Co., (1889) 40 Fed. Rep. 101. Rates charged for transportation in cars of private company. 29. Where a railroad company finds it necessary to rent some portion of its rolling stock from others, it must see to it that the rates charged are no higher on its own cars than on the cars obtained from others.-Worcester Excursion Car Co. v. Pennsylvania Rd. Co., (1890) 3 I. C. C. R. 577, 581, 2 I. C. R. 792. 30. Complainant was the owner of special live-stock cars which it leased to shippers for the transportation of their stock. Defendants received and transported such cars, but exacted a higher rate on the stock carried therein than that charged when the stock was carried in ordinary cattle cars. Complainant's cars were so constructed as not to be available to any considerable extent for back loading. Held, that the expense of hauling complainant's cars in one direction unloaded, as compared with the greater ability to load back the ordinary cattle cars, justified a difference in charge against shippers who preferred to hire complainant's cars.-Burton Stock Car Co. v. Chicago, B. & Q. Rd. Co. et al., (1887) 1 I. C. C. R. 132, 1 I. C. R. 329. VI. PRIVATE CARS. DISCRIMINATION BETWEEN CARS OF RIGHT TO HAUL CARS OF ONE CLASS RIGHT TO HAUL CARS OF ONE CLASS RATES AND RULES FOR HAULING PRI- Carrier may refuse to haul. 32. A carrier may lawfully decline to haul private cars, no matter by whom owned or for what purpose used.-Carr v. Northern Pacific Ry. Co., (1901) 9 I. C. C. R. 1, 12. Discrimination between cars of same class. 33. Where a carrier transports private cars of one class, whether upon published rates or otherwise, it must in like manner and upon like terms transport all private cars occupied for the same or similar purposes.-Carr v. Northern Pacific Ry. Co., (1901) 9 I. C. C. R. 1, 12. 34. A carrier is not at liberty to transport some private cars and refuse to transport other cars of the same kind, simply because it publishes no rates for private ears, and claims not to be a common carrier of such cars.-Carr v. Northern Pacific Ry. Co., (1901) 9 I. C. C. R. 1, 12. Right to haul cars of one class and refuse to haul cars of another class. 35. A carrier may haul private cars of a certain class, and lawfully refuse at the same time to haul others of a wholly or substantially different class.-Carr Northern Pacific Ry. Co., (1901) 9 I. C. C. Discrimination in payment of car mileage. V. Right to haul cars of one class and to make higher charge for cars of different class. 36. Complainant purchased a secondhand Pullman parlor car and stocked the same with samples of men's clothing and furnishings. Defendant transported the ear from St. Paul, Minn., to Portland, Ore., and return at a rate equal to 15 round-trip fares between those points. Stops were permitted at different points en route to enable complainant to obtain orders, the goods being later shipped by freight to the several purchasers. Defendant refused to accept the car for subsequent trips except upon payment of 15 local fares from station to station as stoppages made. were The cost to complainant was thereby increased from $1,350 to about $2,400. Private cars of pleasure parties, hunting and fishing parties, theatrical companies, etc., were accepted by defendant at a rate equal to 15 round-trip fares, and were allowed to stop over at places indicated en route or agreed upon in advance. Complainant alleged that the rate charged on the basis of local fares operated to subject him to unjust discrimination. Substantially all the results obtained by complainant were seeured through the carrier's facilities. The property of defendant, its side tracks and station yards, were used for the transaction of his business. The benefit thereby accruing to complainant was exceptional. Held, that the difference in the nature and value of the service was so material when compared with that rendered in transporting pleasure parties, hunting and fishing parties, theatrical companies, etc., that defendant was warranted in exacting higher charges for hauling complainant's car, or in declining to haul it at all.-Carr v. Northern Pacific Ry. Co., (1901) 9 1. C. C. R. 1. Transportation of car stocked with samples of merchandise, as unduc preference. 37. Complainant purchased a secondhand Pullman parlor car and stocked the same with samples of men's clothing and furnishings. Defendant transported the ear from St. Paul, Minn., to Portland, Ore., and return at a rate equal to 15 round-trip fares between those points. Stops were permitted at different points en route to enable complainant to obtain orders, the goods being later shipped by freight to the several purchasers. Held, that if defendant and carriers generally should undertake to transport all cars of the kind in question, even upon terms fairly compensatory for the service, the probable effect would be an undue preference to the own ers of such cars, since the privilege enjoyed by them, though nominally open to all, would not in fact be available to busi ness rivals who could not afford to provide such equipment.-Carr v. Northern Pacific Ry. Co., (1901) 9 I. C. C. R. 1. Rates and rules for hauling private cars should be stated in tariff. 38. Where cars owned by private parties are accepted by the carrier for transportation, the rates and rules under which they will be transported should be stated in the tariffs.-Carr v. Northern Pacific Ry. Co.. (1901) 9 I. C. C. R. 1. VII. INTERCHANGE OF CARS BETWEEN CONNECTING ROADS. RIGHT OF CARRIER TO REFUSE TO ALLOW ITS CARS TO BE SENT TO POINTS ON OTHER ROADS, 39. RIGHT TO REFUSE TO ACCEPT FREIGHT FOR CARRIAGE IN CARS OF CONNECTING ROADS, 40, 41. RIGHT TO ACCEPT FREIGHT FOR CAR RIAGE IN CARS OF ONE CARRIER AND TO REFUSE TO SO ACCEPT FREIGHT FROM ANOTHER, 42. REFUSAL BY EMPLOYES OF ONE CARRIER TO HAUL CARS OF CONNECTING CARRIER, 43. Right of carrier to refuse to allow its cars to be sent to points on other roads. 39. It is not unlawful for a carrier to refuse to allow its cars to be sent to distant points on other lines when the business of its own line is sufficient to keep its cars fully occupied.-Riddle, D. & Co. v. Pittsburgh & L. E. Rd. Co., (1888) 1 I. C. C. R. 374, 1 I. C. R. 688. Right to refuse to accept freight for carriage in cars of connecting roads. 40. Section 3 of the Act requiring common carriers to afford all reasonable and equal facilities for the interchange of traffic between their respective lines, held, not to require one carrier to accept and carry freight in the cars of another, when it has cars of its own available for the service, and to transfer the freight will not be injurious to it.-Oregon Short Line & U. N. Ry. Co. v. Northern Pacific Rd. Co., (1892) 51 Fed. Rep. 465; affirmed, 61 Fed. Rep. 158, 9 C. C. A. 409. 41. Section 3 of the Act does not require an interstate carrier to receive freight from a connecting carrier in the cars in which it is tendered, and to transport it in such cars, paying a mileage rate thereon, when it has cars of its own available for the service, and the freight will not be injured by transfer.-Little Rock & M. Rd. Co. v. St. Louis, S. W. Ry. Co., (1894) 63 Fed. Rep. 775, 11 C. C. A. 417, affirming 59 Fed. Rep. 400. Right to accept freight for carriage in cars of one carrier and to refuse to so accept freight from another. 42. A railroad company may, without violating the Act, lawfully receive loaded cars from one connecting carrier, with whom it has a joint traffic arrangement, and require that freight offered by another connecting carrier, with whom it has no such arrangement, shall be reloaded into its own cars and rebilled at local rates.Little Rock & M. Rd. Co. v. St. Louis, I. M. & S. Ry. Co., (1894) 59 Fed. Rep. 400; affirmed, 63 Fed. Rep. 775, 11 C. C. A. 417. Refusal by employes of one carrier to haul cars of connecting carrier. 43. Defendant's employes, who were members of a labor organization which had declared a boycott against complainant's road, refused to haul complainant's cars in interstate commerce. Held, that such refusal was a violation of section 3 of the Act requiring carriers to furnish equal facilities for the interchange of traffic, and that injunction would lie to restrain defendant and its employes from refusing to receive and haul complainant's cars.-Toledo, A. A. & N. M. Ry. Co. v. Pennsylvania Co. et al., (1893) 54 Fed. Rep. 746. VIII. CONDITION OF CARS PROVIDED. Should be in suitable condition for use. 44. The carrier should furnish cars in such condition that shippers will not be put to any expense in preparing them for use.-Hezel Milling Co. v. St. Louis, A. & T. H. Rd. Co. et al., (1891) 5 I. C. C. R. 57, 67, 3 I. C. R. 701. Declaration of agent as to fitness of car. 45. Declaration of a station agent as to fitness of car to make a long journey, held not binding upon the carrier.-Michigan Congress Water Co. v. Chicago & G. T. Ry. Co.. (1889) 2 I. C. C. R. 594, 2 I. C. R. 428. Free cartage furnished by carrier, see Delivery at destination," 32-36. Hauling goods to depot, payment by earrier of cost of, see "Delivery to car rier," 11-14. Furnishing of free cartage by carrierFailure to publish in tariff. 1. Defendant had furnished free cartage between its station at Grand Rapids, Mich., and the places of business of merchants in that city for a period of over 25 years. No mention of the practice was made in its published schedules. Held, that since it might well be doubted whether cartage, when furnished free, is included within the meaning of the phrase "terrule or regulation" which in any manner minal charge", or can be regarded as "a changes, affects or determines any part of the aggregate of the rates, fares and charges, the failure of defendant to pub lish in its schedules a provision that free cartage would be allowed at Grand Rapids could not be said to be a violation of section 6 of the Act.-Interstate Commerce Commission v. Detroit, G. H. & M. Ry. Co., (1897) 167 U. S. 633, 645, 17 Sup. Ct. R. 986, 42 L. Ed. 306, affirming 74 Fed. Rep. 803, 43 U. S. App. 308, reversing 57 Fed. Rep. 1005, and refusing to enforce order of Commission, Stone & C. v. D. G. H. & M. Ry., 3 I. C. C. R. 613, 3 I. C. R. 60. Power of Commission to require publication of, by general order. 2. In the matter of requiring railroad companies, which furnish free cartage, to publish the fact in their schedules, the In a matter of this kind, much must be Supreme Court of the United States said: left to the judgment of the Commission, and should it direct, by a general order, that railway companies should thereafter regard cartage when furnished free as one of the terminal charges, and include it as such in their schedules, such an order might be regarded as a reasonable exercise of the Commission's powers."-Interstate Commerce Commission v. Detroit, G. H. & M. Ry. Co., (1897) 167 U. S. 633, 646, 17 Sup. Ct. R. 986, 42 L. Ed. 306. CASES. See "Egg Cases." CASTOR BEANS. Eureka Springs, Ark., St. Louis, Mo. 1. Carload rate was 271⁄2 cents per 100 pounds. Held, that any rate in excess of that stated would be unreasonable.-Cary Denver, Colo, from Pacific coast terminals. Liverpool, Eng., through New Orleans to 2. Proportion of through rate received by inland carrier for haul from New Orleans was 70 cents per 100 pounds. Established inland rate was $1.06. Held, that inland proportion of the through rate could not lawfully be less than corresponding inland rate.-New York Bd. of Trade v. Pennsylvania Rd. Co. et al., (1891) 4 I. C. C. R. 447, 3 I. C. R. 417; order of Commission enforced, I. C. C. v. Texas & P. Ry. Co., 52 Fed. Rep. 187, 57 Fed. Rep. 948; decree of lower courts reversed, Texas & P. Ry. Co. v. I. C. C., 162 U. S. 197, 16 Sup. Ct. R. 666, 40 L. Ed. 940. Roswell, N. M., from Iola, Kan. 3. Rate of 35 cents held not unreasonable.-Roswell Commercial Club v. Atchison, T. & S. F. Ry. Co. et al., (1907) 12 I. C. C. R. 339, CEMENT BURIAL VAULTS. See ،، Burial vaults. '' CEMENT PLASTER. Complaint was made that these rates unjustly discriminated in favor of shipments from Cement. Held, that rate from Quanah to Kansas City ought not to exceed 104 cents per 100 pounds, and from Quanah to St. Louis, 12 cents, so long as rates to such points from Cement were 8 and 10 cents, respectively; that any change in rates from Cement should be followed by a corresponding change in rates from Quanah, in such manner that rate from Quanah to Kansas City should not be more than 128 per cent of rate from Cement to Kansas City, and that from Quanah to St. Louis not more than 120 per cent of rate from Cement to St. Louis. -Texas Cement Plaster Co. v. St. Louis & S. F. Rd. Co. et al., (1907) 12 I. C. C. R. 68. San Bernardino, Cal., from Chicago, Ill. 1. Rate on chairs, wooden, cane or perforated, seated, not more than $9 per dozen, in carloads, of $1.30 per 100 pounds, held unlawful under section 4 of Act as compared with rate of $1.10 from same point through San Bernardino to Los Angeles.-San Bernardino Bd. of Trade v. Atchison, T. & S. F. Rd. Co. et al., (1890) Louis, Mo. 4 I. C. C. R. 104, 3 I. C. R. 138; petition to 1. Rates per 100 pounds, in carloads, | enforce order of Commission denied, I. C. from Quanah, Tex., and Cement, Okla., C. v. Atchison, T. & S. F. Rd. Co., 50 Fed. were as follows: Quanah, Tex., to Kansas City and St. Rep. 295. "Demurrage charges;" "Lien for charges;" "Overcharges;" "Per diem 1. Under section 1 of the Act providing that all charges shall be reasonable, held, that the word "charges" is used in the technical sense of segregated items of expense which are to be demanded by the carrier for any service in connection with the transportation.-Detroit, G. H. & M. Ry. Co. v. Interstate Commerce Commission, (1896) 74 Fed. Rep. 803, 815. When charges subject to Act. 2. All services incidental or necessary to the transportation and final delivery of an interstate shipment are a part of the interstate transportation, and any charges relating thereto are subject to the provi sions of the Act.-State v. Atchison, T. & S. F. Ry. Co., (1903) 176 Mo. 687, 75 S. W. 776, 63 L. R. A. 761. Absorption of charge vided for in tariff. Must be pro terminal 3. No switching or other charges;" 'Rates; "Reconsignment charge should be absorbed by a carrier charges; "Refrigeration charges;', except under plain and specific tariff pro"Storage charges;" "Terminal vision therefor.-Leonard et al. v. Chicago, charges;" "Transfer charges;" "Un- M. & St. P. Ry. Co., (1907) 12 I. C. C. R. dercharge." Advancing freight charge, or requiring prepayment of freight charge, on property received from connecting carrier, see "Connnecting carriers, 44-48. Authority of Commission to award reparation for unjust charges, see "Reparation," 10. 66 6-8. 492. Payment of charge by shipper When same cannot be recovered back. 4. Where a consignee, after delivery of perishable freight at destination, voluntarily and with full knowledge of all the facts paid a charge for icing service in addition to the published rate for transcan-portation, such charge having been specified in the published tariff, held, that the same could not be recovered back on the ground that the charge was unlawful.— Knudsen-Ferguson Fruit Co. v. Chicago, St. P. M. & O. Ry. Co., (1906) 149 Fed. Rep. 973, C. C. A. -. Charging for weight not carried in car in which required minimum quantity not be loaded, see "Weights, Estimated weights, as basis for fixing charges, see Weights," 24-30. Imposition of yardage charge for use of stock yards, see "Stock yards," 4. Lien, see "Lien for charges." Minimum charge, see "Minimum charges." Naming charge in tariff which carrier is not required to meet, see "Schedules or tariffs, 55, 56. Publication of charges, see "Schedules or tariffs." Requirement that all charges be guaran teed in full, as condition precedent to making delivery without payment, see "Guaranty," 2. Storage charges, cancellation of, as rebate, see "Rebates or concessions," 32. Terminal charge, absorption of, under 5. Where a shipper voluntarily pays increased freight charges, the same cannot be recovered back, although the carrier failed to give the statutory notice of such increase. Strough v. N. Y. Cent. & H. R. R. Co., 87 N. Y. Supp. 30, 92 App. Div. 584; affirmed, (1904) 181 N. Y. 533, 73 N. E. 1133. CHINAWARE. Liverpool, Eng., through New Orleans to California terminals. 1. Proportion of through rate received |