Lapas attēli
PDF
ePub

BLOOMS.

Pueblo, Colo., to San Francisco, Cal 1. Rate in force was 85 cents per 100 pounds. Rate from Chicago to San Franeiseo was 50 cents. Held, that rate from Pueblo should not exceed 75 per cent of rate contemporaneously in force from Chicago. Colorado Fuel & Iron Co. v. Southern Pacific Co. et al., (1895) 6 I. C. C. R. 488; petition to enforce order of Commission denied, Southern Pac. Co. v. Colorado Fuel & Iron Co., 101 Fed. Rep. 779, 42 C.

[blocks in formation]

BOOKS, PAPERS AND DOCUMENTS.

Admissibility of, as evidence, see "Evidence."

Appeal from order requiring production of, see "Appeal," 7.

BOTTLES.

San Bernardino, Cal., from Chicago, Ill.

1. Rate on bottles in bulk, in carloads, of $1.10 per 100 pounds, held unlawful under section 4 of Act as compared with rate of 90 cents from same point through San Bernardino to Los Angeles.-San Bernardino Bd. of Trade v. Atchison, T. & S. F. Rd. Co. et al., (1890) 4 I. C. C. R. 104, 3 I. C. R. 138; petition to enforce order of Commission denied, I. C. C. v. Atchison, T. & S. F. Rd. Co., 50 Fed. Rep. 295.

[blocks in formation]

BREAKAGE.

Damages caused by, Commission without power to award, see "Damages," 5. Rule providing for "owners risk," when carrier elects to disregard, see Limitation of liability," 16.

BRICK.

Cherryvale, Kan., to Duncan, Ind. Terr.

Bridge company as common carrier.

cars

1. A bridge company owning no which merely transfers the cars of certain railroad companies over its bridge, and charges a stipulated toll for the service, is not a common carrier within the meaning of the act to regulate commerce.Kentucky & I. Bridge Co. v. Louisville & N. Rd. Co., (1889) 37 Fed. Rep. 567, 615, refusing to enforce order of Commission, 2 I. C. C. R. 162, 2 I. C. R. 102.

Rental paid for use of bridge-Right of carrier to demand compensation for outlay.

2. The Union Pacific Railway con

1. Through rate via St. L. & S. F. Railroad and C., R. I. & P. Railway was 12 cents. Combination on Chickasha was 112 cents. Held, that rate of 112 cents ought not to be exceeded for the future.structed a bridge over the Missouri river Coffeyville Brick & T. Co. v. St. Louis & S. F. Rd. Co. et al., (1907) 12 I. C. C. R. 498.

Frederick, Md., to Elberton, N. J.

2. Carload rate of $3.80 per ton, 236 miles, held unreasonable; that rate ought not to exceed $2.75 per ton.-Frederick Brick Works v. Northern Cent. Ry. Co. et al., (1907) 12 I. C. C. R. 13.

Strasburg and Empire, O., to New York, N. Y.

3. Rate on fire brick from Strasburg was 172 cents; on building and paving brick, 14 cents. Rate on fire brick from Empire was 15 cents, on building brick 13 cents, and on paving brick 12 cents. Held, that fire brick, building brick and paving brick, as to points involved, should

bear the same rate.-Stowe-Fuller Co. v. Pennsylvania Co. et al, (1907) 12 I. C. C. R. 215.

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

at Omaha, Neb. Certain carriers had leased the right to run their trains across the bridge, paying an annual rental therefor. Held, that the carriers using the

bridge were prima facie entitled to deCommercial Club of Omaha v. Chicago & mand compensation for their outlay.N. W. Ry. Co. et al., (1897) 7 I. C. Č. R. 386, 402.

Existence of bridge as ground for differential in rates as between rival localities.

3. The existence of expensive bridges at Cincinnati, O., over which traffic is required to pass in reaching points in southin rates against Cincinnati and in favor of ern territory, held to justify a differential Louisville, Ky.-Freight Bureau of Cincinnati v. Cincinnati, N. O. & T. P. Ry. Co. et al., (1897) 7 I. C. C. R. 180.

BROKER.

See Ticket broker."'

BROOM CORN.

Eureka Springs, Ark., St. Louis, Mo.

1. Carload rate on, minimum weight 12,000 lbs., was 42 cents per 100 pounds. Held, that any rate in excess of that stated would be unreasonable.-Cary et al. Eureka Springs Ry. Co. et al., (1897) 7 I. C. C. R. 286.

BROOM-CORN SEED.

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 et al. v. Eureka Springs Ry. Co. et al., (1897) 7 I. C. C. R. 286.

BRUSHES.

Classification of brushes, see "Classifica tion,'' 41.

BUGGIES.

See "Carriages.'

Jackson, Mich., to San Bernardino, Cal. 1. Carload rate of $2.50 per 100 pounds, held not unlawful as compared with rate of $2.20 from same point through San Bernardino to Los Angeles, Cal.-Holdzkom v. Michigan Cent. Ry. Co. et al., (1901) 9 I. C. C. R. 42.

Rock Hill, S. C., to Tallahassee, Fla.

2. Carload rate of $1.30 per 100 pounds, held not unlawful under section 4 of Act

as compared with rate of $1.10 from same point through Tallahassee to Quincy, Fla. -Rock Hill Buggy Co. v. Southern Ry. Co. et al., (1905) 11 I. C. C. R. 229. San Bernardino, Cal., from Chicago, Ill.

3. Rate on buggies, in carloads, of $2.96 per 100 pounds, held unlawful under section 4 of Act as compared with rate of $2.70 from same point through San Bernardino to Los Angeles.-San Bernardino Bd. of Trade v. Atchison, T. & S. F. Rd. Co. et al., (1890) 4 I. C. C. R. 104, 3 L. C. R. 138; petition to enforce order of Commission denied, I. C. C. v. Atchison, T. & S. F. Rd. Co., 50 Fed. Rep. 295.

BUILDING BRICK.

See "Brick."

BULK OF GOODS.

As element in rate making, see "Rates," 23.

As element affecting classification, **Classification," 20-26, 35.

BURDEN OF PROOF.

See "Evidence;" "Rates," 1125-1146.

see

Burden of showing differential unlawful, see "Rates," 1140, 1141. Competition, burden of proof to show, see "Rates," 1144.

Contract limiting liability, when burden on carrier to show reduced rate, and that such rate was posted and filed, see "Limitation of liability," 12. Departure from rule of equal mileage rates, burden on carrier to justify, see Discrimination, burden of proof in cases "Rates," 1142, 1143. Discrimination, when burden on carrier of, see Rates," 1133-1143. to justify, see Discrimination," 149, 150.

Findings of Commission, burden on carrier to show finuings erroneous, see "Findings and conclusions of Commission,'' 14, 15.

In cases to prevent discrimination in furnishing cars, see "Car distribution,''

52.

Preference or prejudice, burden of proof, see "Rates," 1133-1139. Prosecution for granting or accepting rebate from joint tariff, burden to show common control, management or arrangement, see "Criminal prosecution,'' 75, 76.

Reparation, burden of proof in suit to Through interstate passenger fare in exrecover, see "Reparation," 130-140. cess of sum of state locals, burden on carrier to show through rate is reasonable, see "Rates," 1062, 1063. To secure change in classification, see "Classification," 74, 75.

To show discrimination, see "Discrimination," 148.

Under section 4, see "Long and short haul clause,'' 158-167.

Unreasonableness of rate, burden of proof to show, see "Rates,'' 1126-1131.

BURIAL VAULTS.

Classification of burial vaults, see "Classification, 42.

BURLAP BAGS.

Advance in rate, burden on carrier to See Bags.' justify, see "Rates," 1125. Agreement for lower rate than tariff rate, burden to show contract unlawful, see "Schedules or tariffs,' "' 252, 253. Breach of agreement to transport at certain rates, burden to show rates were filed with Commission, see "Schedules or tariffs," 254.

BURLAPS.

Liverpool, Eng., through New Orleans to California terminals.

1. Proportion of through rate received by inland carrier for haul from New Or

leans was 70 cents per 100 pounds. Es tablished inland rate was $1.80. 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.

BURNT DISTRICT, TEXAS. See "Rates,'' 494.

BUSINESS DEPRESSION. Low rates in times of, see "Rates," 114. Restoration of rates established during period of, see "Rates, 364-366.

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

which the rate should be 26 cents; the third group to include stations between 100 and 190 miles from the terminal, from which the rate should be 29 cents; the fourth group to include all stations beyond 190 miles from the terminal, from which the rate should be 32 cents.-Milk Producers' Assn. v. Delaware, L. & W. Rd. Co. et al., (1897) 7 I. C. C. R. 92; Brockway v. Ulster & D. Rd. Co. et al., (1898) 8 I. C. C. R. 21.

CABBAGE.

See "Perishable freight."

Charleston, S. C., to New York, N. Y.

1. Rate was 61 cents per barrel. Same rate was charged on potatoes. Held, that rate on cabbage should be one-fourth less than that on potatoes, or 46 cents per barrel.-Truck Farmers' Assn. v. Northeastern Rd. Co. et al., (1895) 6 I. C. C. R. 295; petition to enforce order of Commission denied, I. C. C. v. Northeastern Rd. Co., 74 Fed. Rep. 70, 83 Fed. Rep.

611.

[blocks in formation]

1. Proportion of through rate received by inland carrier for haul from New Orleans was 70 cents per 100 pounds. Established inland rate was $1.25. 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. 57 Fed. Rep. 948; decree of lower courts v. Texas & P. Ry. Co., 52 Fed. Rep. 187, reversed, Texas & P. Ry. Co. v. I. C. C., 162 U. S. 197, 16 Sup. Ct. R. 666, 40 L. Ed.

940.

CANNED GOODS.

Dallas, Tex., from New Orleans, La.

1. Rate of 47 cents per 100 pounds, held not unlawful as compared with rate

of 3 cents from same point through Dalas to Kansas City, Mo.-Dallas Freight Burran v. Texas & P. Ry. Co. et al., (1898) LC. C. R. 33.

Helena, Ga., from Cincinnati, O.

2 Carload rate of 58 cents per 100 pernès, held unreasonable; that such rate #gat not to exceed rate of 56 cents from same point to Fitzgerald, Ga.-Davenport V. Southern Ry. Co. et al., (1906) 11 I. C. C. B. 650.

Helena, Ga., from Memphis, Tenn.

3. Carload rate of 54 cents per 100 pounds, held unreasonable; that such rate saght not to exceed rate of 52 cents from same point to Fitzgerald, Ga.-Davenport V. Southern Ry. Co. et al., (1906) 11 I. C. C. R. 650.

McRae, Ga., from Cincinnati, O.

[blocks in formation]

DUTY OF CARRIER IN GENERAL, 1-5.
DIFFICULTY OF APPLYING FIXED
RULES, 6.

REASONABLE RULE OF DISTRIBUTION
AFFORDS NO JUST CAUSE FOR COM-
PLAINT, 7.

4 Carload rate of 68 cents per 100 pounds, held unreasonable; that such rate Gught not to exceed rate of 56 cents from same point to Fitzgerald, Ga.-Davenport 7. Southern Ry. Co. et al., (1906) 11 I. C. AGENT, CARRIER BOUND BY ACTS OR C. R. 650.

McRae, Ga., from Memphis, Tenn.

5. Carload rate of 64 cents per 100 pounds, held unreasonable; that such rate ought not to exceed rate of 52 cents from same point to Fitzgerald, Ga.-Davenport 7. Southern Ry. Co. et al., (1906) 11 I. C. C. R. 650.

CAPITAL ACCOUNT.

REPRESENTATIONS OF, 8.

REGULAR CUSTOMERS OF CARRIER,
PREFERENCE IN FAVOR OF, 9, 10.

REFUSAL OF SHIPPER TO ACCEPT CARS

BECAUSE OF ACCRUED CLAIM FOR
DAMAGES, 11.

GRAIN ELEVATOR, DISCRIMINATION IN
FAVOR OF, 12, 13.

SPECIFIC INSTANCES OF DISCRIMINA-
TION, 14-16.

Duty of carrier in general.

1. Every shipper is legally entitled to fair opportunity and treatment in the use of cars, and any discrimination which

As basis by which to readjust rates, see in substantial degree deprives shippers of "Rates," 213.

CAR CLEARING HOUSE.

As remedy for car shortage, see shortage."

CAR COMPANY.

"Car

Cars owned by, see "Cars,'' 24-31.
Not entitled to equal facilities for inter-
change of traffic, see "Carriers,'' 53.

CAR DISTRIBUTION.

I. IN GENERAL, 1-16.

[ocr errors]

JURISDICTION
17, 18.

III.

EMBARGO, 19, 20.

OF COMMISSION,

such use must be considered unjust, unless forced by justifying conditions.-Richmond Elevator Co. v. Pere Marquette R. Co., (1905) 10 I. C. C. R. 629.

2. It is the duty of a common carrier to provide adequate equipment for the business of its line; and if in time of special pressure some one must wait for cars, the annoyance must be distributed with all possible equality among all its customers.-Riddle, D. & Co. v. New York, L. E. & W. Rd. Co., (1888) 1 I. C. C. R. 594, 1 I. C. R. 787.

3. Where a carrier, by reason of causes beyond its control, is unable to furnish sufficient cars to accommodate all shippers along its line, it should endeavor to furnish what cars it has to all shippers in proportion to their shipments, upon a basis that is relatively and substantially

IV. CONTRACTS RELATING TO DISTRI. just.-Riddle, D. & Co. v. Pittsburg & L.

BUTION, 21-23.

V. RATING OF MINES, 24-27.

E. Rd. Co., (1888) 1 I. C. C. R. 374, 1 I.
C. R. 688.

« iepriekšējāTurpināt »