Lapas attēli
PDF
ePub

LEHMANN, HIGGINSON & COMPANY v. THE SOUTH

ERN PACIFIC COMPANY, THE TEXAS & PACIFIC
RAILWAY COMPANY, THE MISSOURI, KANSAS
& TEXAS RAILWAY COMPANY, AND H. C. CROSS
AND GEORGE A. EDDY, RECEIVERS OF SAID COMPANY.

LEHMANN, HIGGINSON & COMPANY v. THE SOUTH

ERN PACIFIC COMPANY, THE ATLANTIC &
PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY, AND THE ATCH-
ISON, TOPEKA & SANTA FE RAILROAD COM-
PANY.

LEHMANN, HIGGINSON & COMPANY v. THE CEN

TRAL PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY, THE
SOUTHERN PACIFIC COMPANY, LESSEE OF THE
CENTRAL PACIFIC RAILROAD, THE UNION PACIFIC
RAILWAY COMPANY, THE MISSOURI, KANSAS
& TEXAS RAILWAY COMPANY, AND H. C. CROSS
AND GEORGE A. EDDY, RECEIVERS OF SAID COMPANY.

Complaints filed June 17, 1889. Answers filed July 9 to August 24, 1889.

Heard at Kansas City, Mo., September 24 and 25, 1889. Briefs
December 6, 1889, to March 19, 1890. Decided May 22, 1890.

A lower charge for a longer distance for transportation of like traffic may

be justified by actual water competition of controlling force, relating to traffic important in amount; and among the circumstances and conditions that may be considered in estimating the dissimilarity created by water competition are the character of the roads, the character of the traffic, the preponderance of empty cars moving in a direction in which the traffic must be taken, and the legitimacy

of the competition by the rail carrier. The transportation of traffic under circumstances and conditions that

force a low rate for its carriage or an abandonment of the business, but which affords some revenue above the cost of its movement, and works no material injustice to other patrons of a carrier, is to be

[graphic]

4. PATENT ME

Warner

et al., & 5. SOAP.

Andrews

way Ca

Proctor &

pany et Beaver &

Compar 6. Food PRODUC

In re Alle

ucts, 48 7. PETROLEUM AI

Rice, Rol

Railroad

Rice v. At 8. BLANKET.

Rice v. At 9. HOGS AND Hoc

Board of

Company

Squire & C 10. Pig Iron.

Poughkeep

Railroad 11. SURGICAL CHA

Harvard CC 12. COAL.

Haddocko.

Coxe Broth 13. GROUP.

Coxe Broth 14. WHEAT AND F

Kauffman 1

al., 417. 15. IMPORT TRAFF

New York

Railroad 16. CATTLE AND DI

Squire & Co 17. PEACHES.

Delaware St

Railroad Boston Frui

Railroad 18. PERISHABLE FR

[graphic]

em Pacific Company et al, 1

Cincinnati & St. Louis Rail

mon & Dayton Railroad Com cinnati & St. Louis Railway

New York & Pennsylvanis

Cailroad Company et al., 2

Railroad Company et al., 9

1. Chicago & Alton Railroad

Railroad Company et al

, 611

York Central & Hudson River

mpany et al., 212.

Testern Railroad Company, 2%
Valley Railroad Company

, Si

REASONABLE RATES. 1. To SMALL Town.-When a reduced rate is made at the terminus of a

through route under the compulsion of competition, a town not on the through route but reached over a connecting road has a disadvantage of location entailing some additional expense, and a reasonably higher rate to such town than the forced competitive rate is not unlawful.

Lehmann, Higginson & Company o. Southern Pacific Company et al., 1. 2. PATENT MEDICINES.-Patent medicines manufactured and shipped by the complainant are rated in the

Official Classification as first class for less than carloads and third class for carloads. Ale, beer and mineral water are rated as third class in less than carloads and fifth class in carloads. The market value of the medicines is three times or more higher than that of the other articles named and the quantity transported much less. Upon complaint made that the patent medicines should be classified the same as ale, beer and mineral water:

Held, that in view of the much higher market value of the medicines
and the smaller volume of traffic they supply a higher classification
than for the other articles named, in which there is much greater com-
petition among shippers, is not unreasonable, and the classification at
present in force is not shown to be unjust.
Warner ». New York Central & Hudson River Railroad Company et

al., 32.
3. SOAP.-On complaint of unjust classification of soap adv

as toilet soap, but claimed not superior to certain laun
ported at a lower rate. Held, that the manufacturer
the soap to the public warrants its classification accord
Andrews Soap Company o. Pittsburgh, Cincinnati &

way Company et al., 41.
The complainants are large manufacturers of common so
nati, Ohio. In the Official Classificatie

non soap ste
fifth class in carload lots. The det
always given it the rate of fifth-class
to May, 1889, they charged the comp

ly net weig
gross weight being one-sixth more tha

it since sai they have charged for gross weight wn

og the rate hundred pounds. The effect of this wa

ixth more the same service than had before been ch.

nge for

tran portation under the net-weight practice w

d just,

an without complaint on the part of shippers

that the

Valley Railroad Company

, ai

ari Pacific Railway Company

road compas

or many yes

sportation et al. t. Pennsylvania

al Railroad Company et al., till

York, Philadelphia & Nortok 20. New York & New England

deemed legitimate competition. When, however, its carriage is at a loss, and imposes a burden on like traffic at other points, and on other traffic, it is to be deemed destructive and illegitimate como

petition. Rates can not be arbitrarily charged in the mere discretion of a carrier.

They are to be equitably adjusted with regard to the public interests as well as the carrier’s. Reduced rates at points where competitive influences are controlling must not fall below some revenue from the traffic in excess of cost, and higher rates at other points, required for the necessary revenue of a carrier, must be reasonable in themselves, and also relatively reasonable in comparison with the com

petitive rate. The general rule contemplated by the statute of equitably graduated

charges on like traffic with reasonable reference to the amount of the service, is just in itself, and commonly most beneficial both to the carriers and to the public, and is only to be departed from when justified by exceptional conditions, and in such instances no longer

than the conditions require. Where a reduced rate is made at the terminus of a through route, under

the compulsion of competition, a town not located on the line of the through route, but reached over a lateral connecting road, has a disadvantage of situation entailing some additional expense, and a reasonably higher rate to snch town than the forced competitive rate to the more distant terminus of the through route, is not unjust

discrimination. l'pon complaint by dealers at Humboldt, Kansas, against the respond

ent lines for unjust discrimination in charging a rate of 65 cents per hundred pounds on sugar transported from San Francisco to Kansas City, and 85 cents per hundred pounds upon the same commodity from San Francisco to Humboldt, more than a hundred miles

shorter distance, but not on the through line. Held, that the reduced rate to Kansas City being forced upon the car.

riers by competitive conditions beyond their control, and the rate to
Humboldt not being unreasonable in itself, but lower than it would
be except for the influence of the competitive conditions at Kansas
City, and it not appearing that substantial injustice results from
higher rate at Humboldt, the lower rate to Kansas (*;•
higher rate to Humboldt are not deemed to be:
the statute.

E. A. Barber and II. C. Sluss, for con ('. II. Threel and J. ('. Martin, for $ Warner, Denn d llagerman, for

Kansas & Texas Railway Co.

« iepriekšējāTurpināt »