INDEX. ABANDONMENT. Of unlawful rates. Montell v. Baltimore & O. R. Co. 412. ACTION OR SUIT. See also PARTIES. A shipper who is compelled to pay charges in excess of those set forth on the CONSTRUCTION OF SECTION ONE. Milk Producers' Protective Association v. Delaware, L. & W. R. Co. 92. Calloway v. Louisville & N. R. Co. 431. Cattle Raisers' Asso. v. Fort Worth & D. C. R. Co. 513. American Warehousemen's Asso. v. Illinois Cent, R. Co. 556. Alleged Unlawful Rates and Practices, 33. Savannah Bureau of Freight v. Charleston & S. R. Co. 601. Milk Producers' Protective Asso. v. Delaware, L. & W. R. Co. 92. Mt. Vernon Milling Co. v. Chicago, M. & St. P. R. Co. 194. Cary v. Eureka Springs R. Co. 286. Commercial Club of Omaha v. Chicago & N. W. R. Co. 386. Calloway v. Louisville & N. R. Co. 431. New York Produce Exch. v. Baltimore & O. R. Co. 612. Cattle Raisers' Asso. v. Fort Worth & D. C. R. Co. 513. CONSTRUCTION OF SECTION four. Milk Producers' Protective Asso. v. Delaware, L. & W. R. Co. 92. Brewer & Hanleiter v. Louisville & N. R. Co. 224. Fewell v. Richmond & D. R. Co. 354. Board of Railroad Comrs. v. Cincinnati, N. O. & T. P. R. Co. 380. Calloway v. Louisville & N. R. Co. 431. Savannah Bureau of F. & T. v. Charleston & S. R. Co. 458, 601. CONSTRUCTION OF SECTION SIX. Alleged Unlawful Rates and Practices, 33. New York, N. H. & H. R. Co. v. Platt, 323. CONSTRUCTION OF SECTION THIRTEEN. Cattle Raisers' Asso. v. Fort Worth & D. C. R. Co. 513. CONSTRUCTION OF SECTION FIFTEEN. Cary v. Eureka Springs R. Co. 286. ADVANTAGES. Of location as basis of discrimination. Commercial Club of Omaha v. Chi- AGENT. Of carrier, rates quoted by. Suffern, H. & Co. v. Indiana, D. & W. R. Co. Mistake of, as to rates. Rea v. Mobile & O. R. Co. 43. ANTI-TRUST LAW. Violated by corporation. Cattle Raisers' Asso. v. Fort Worth & D. C. R. Co. 513. APPROVAL. Of circulars by Commission. Suffern, H. & Co. v. Indiana, D. & W. R. Co. ARBITRARY. For bridge. Freight Bureau of Cincinnati v. Cincinnati, N. O. & T. P. R. ASSOCIATION. Right to maintain proceeding. Milk Producers' Protective Asso. v. Delaware, BEANS. Charging second-class rates on. Rea v. Mobile & O. R. Co. 43. BLANKET RATE. From different stations. Milk Producers' Protective Asso. v. Delaware, L. & BOTTLES. Of milk, rates on. Milk Producers' Protective Asso. v. Delaware, L. & W. BRIDGE. Toll on, as affecting railroad rates. N. W. R. Co. 386. Commercial Club of Omaha v. Chicago & Freight Bureau of Cincinnati v. Cincinnati, N. O. & T. P. R. Co. 180. CANADIAN RAILWAY. Competition with. Re Atchison, T. & S. F. R. Co. 593. CANS. Of milk, rates on. Milk Producers' Protective Asso. v. Delaware, L. & W. CAPACITY. Of car, see CARLOAD. CARGO. Low rates for. Paine v. Lehigh Valley R. Co. 218. CARLOAD. Paine Bros. & Co. v. Lehigh Valley R. Co. A rule or regulation of a carrier which has not provided track scales at stations, forbidding shippers to load grain in cars beyond a specified weight above the marked capacity, under penalty of increased rates on the excess weight, if properly established, is not unlawful, provided the increase is not unreasonable and the margin between the maximum and minimum carload weight is so wide that shippers may without scales readily comply with both rules. Suffern v. Indiana, D. & W. R. Co. 255. CARRIERS. See also ACTION OR SUIT; CARLOAD; CORRECTION; COURTS; DISMISSAL; INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION; PARTIES; PASSES; RATES; ROUTE; SCHEDULES OR TARIFFS; SPUR TRACK. Extent of regulation of, by Commission. New York Produce Exch. v. Baltimore & O. R. Co. 612. Freedom of action of. New York Produce Exch. v. Baltimore & O. R. Co. 612. Option of becoming. Cattle Raisers' Asso. v. Fort Worth & D. C. R. Co. 513. Regulation of rates between former parts of through line. Cattle Raisers' Asso. v. Fort Worth & D. C. R. Co. 513. Regulation of stock yards company. Cattle Raisers' Asso. v. Fort Worth & D. C. R. Co. 513. 1. An electric railway lying partly in the District of Columbia and partly in the state of Maryland is subject to the provisions of the Interstate Commerce Act, although constructed on public highways and essentially a street surface road for the convenience of urban and suburban passengers. Willson v. Rock Creek R. Co. 83. 2. A railroad company engaged in transporting milk and cream from points in the state of New York, through the state of New Jersey, to the city of New York, is subject to regulation, under the Interstate Commerce Act, in respect of such transportation. Milk Producers' Protective Asso. v. Delaware, L. & W. R. Co. 92. CARS. Publishing charges for diversion of. American Warehousemen's Asso. v. Alleged Unlawful Rates in Transportation of Grain, 7 I. C. C. Rep. 33,cited on p. 385. Alleged Violations of 4th Section, 7 I. C. C. Rep. 61,-cited on p. 374. Atchison, T. & S. F. R. Co., Re, 7 I. C. C. Rep. 1,-cited on p. 237. Atlanta & W. R. Co., Re, 2 Inters. Com. Rep. 461, 3 I. C. C. Rep. 24,-cited on p. 235. Board of Trade of Chattanooga v. East Tennessee, V. & G. R. Co. 4 Inters. Com. Rep. 213, 5 I. C. C. Rep. 546,-cited on p. 373. Brewer & Hanleiter v. Louisville & N. R. Co. 7 I. C. C. Rep. 234,-cited on pp. 374, 384. Capehart v. Louisville & N. R. Co. 3 Inters. Com. Rep. 278, 4 I. C. C. Rep. 265,-cited on p. 555. Chamber of Commerce v. Flint & P. M. R. Co. 2 Inters. Com. Rep. 393, 2 I. C. C. Rep. 553,-cited on p. 333. Chamber of Commerce v. Great Northern R. Co. 4 Inters. Com. Rep. 230, 5 I. C. C. Rep. 571,-cited pp. 164, 510. Chicago, R. I. & P. R. Co. v. Chicago & A. R. Co. 2 Inters. Com. Rep. 721, 3 I. C. C. Rep. 450,-cited on pp. 247, 335. Chicago, St. P. & K. C. R. Co., Re, 2 Inters. Com. Rep. 137, 2 I. C. C. Rep. 231,-cited on pp. 63, 475. Cincinnati Freight Bureau v. Cincinnati, N. 0. & T. P. R. Co. 7 I. C. C. Rep. 180,-cited on p. 474. Clark, Re, 2 Inters. Com. Rep. 797, 3 I. C. C. Rep. 649,-cited on p. 335. Colorado Fuel & I. Co. v. Southern Pac. Co. 6 Inters. Com. Rep. 488,-cited on p. 278. Commercial Club of Omaha v. Chicago, R. I. & P. R. Co. 6 I. C. C. Rep. 647, -cited on pp. 474, 667. Cordele Machine Shop v. Louisville & N. R. Co. 6 I. C. C. Rep. 361,-cited on p. 235. Eau Claire Bd. of Trade v. Chicago, M. & St. P. R. Co. 5 I. C. C. Rep. 264,cited on p. 164. Evans v. Union P. R. Co. 6 I. C. C. Rep. 520,-cited on p. 555. Freight Bureau v. Cincinnati, N. O. & T. P. R. Co. 7 Inters. Com. Rep. 180,-cited on p. 667. Georgia R. Com. v. Clyde S. S. Co. 4 Inters. Com. Rep. 120, 5 I. C. C. Rep. 324,-cited on p. 373. Harwell v. Columbus & W. R. Co. 1 Inters. Com. Rep. 631, 1 I. C. C. Rep. 236,-cited on p. 235. Howell v. New York, L. E. & W. R. Co. 2 Inters. Com. Rep. 162, 2 I. C. C. Rep. 272,-cited on p. 164. Imperial Coal Co. v. Pittsburgh & L. E. R. Co. 2 Inters. Com. Rep. 436, 2 I. C. C. Rep. 618,-cited on pp. 164, 474. Independent Refiners' Asso. v. Western New York & P. R. Co. 6 I. C. C. Rep. 378,-cited on p. 555. James v. Canadian P. R. Co. 4 Inters. Com. Rep. 274, 5 I. C. C. Rep. 612,cited on pp. 164, 235, 555. James v. East Tennessee, V. & G. R. Co. 2 Inters. Com. Rep. 609, 3 I. C. C. Rep. 225, cited on p. 253. James & M. Buggy Co. v. Cincinnati, N. O. & T. P. R. Co. 3 Inters. Com. Rep. 682, 4 I. C. C. Rep. 744,-cited on pp. 163, 373. Johnston-Larimer Dry Goods Co. v. Atchison, T. & S. F. R. Co. 6 Inters. Com. Rep. 568,-cited on p. 278. Lehmann v. Southern P. R. Co. 3 Inters. Com. Rep. 80, 4 I. C. C. Rep. 1,— cited on p. 235. Lehmann, H. & Co. v. Texas & P. R. Co. 3 Inters. Com. Rep. 706, 5 I. C. C. Rep. 44,-cited on pp. 329, 342, 554. Little Rock & M. R. Co. v. East Tennessee, V. & G. R. Co. 2 Inters. Com. Rep. 554, 3 I. C. C. Rep. 1,-cited on p. 334. Loud v. South Carolina R. Co. 4 Inters. Com. Rep. 205, 5 I. C. C. Rep. 529, -cited on p. 555. Louisville & N. R. Co., Re, 1 Inters. Com. Rep. 278, 1 I. C. C. Rep. 31,-cited on pp. 62, 236. Lynchburg Bd. of Trade v. Old Dominion S. S. Co. 6 I. C. C. Rep. 632,— cited on pp. 237, 374. Macloon v. Chicago & N. W. R. Co. 3 Inters. Com. Rep. 711, 5 I. C. C. Rep. 84,-cited on p. 53. Martin v. Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co. 2 Inters. Com. Rep. 32, 2 I. C. C. Rep. 46, -cited on p. 235. Merchants' Union v. Northern P. R. Co. 4 Inters. Com. Rep. 183, 5 I. C. C. Rep. 478,-cited on p. 235. Michigan Box Co. v. Flint & P. M. R. Co. 6 I. C. C. Rep. 335,-cited on p. 554. Newland v. Northern P. R. Co. 6 I. C. C Rep. 131,-cited on p. 165. New Orleans Cotton Exch. v. Cincinnati, N. O. & T. P. R. Co. 2 Inters. Com. Rep. 289, 2 I. C. C. Rep. 275,-cited on p. 160. New York, N. H. & H. R. Co. v. Platt, 7 I. C. C. Rep. 323,-cited on p. 588. Pankey v. Richmond & D. R. Co. 3 Inters. Com. Rep. 33, 3 I. C. C. Rep. 658, -cited on p. 53. Perry v. Florida C. & P. R. Co. 3 Inters. Com. Rep. 740, 5 I. C. C. Rep. 97, -cited on p. 554. Potter Mfg. Co. v. Chicago & G. T. R. Co. 4 Inters. Com. Rep. 223, 5 I. C. C. Rep. 514,-cited on p. 555. Railroad Commission of Florida v. Savannah, F. & W. R. Co. 3 Inters. Com. Rep. 688, 5 I. C. C. Rep. 13,-cited on p. 554. Railroad Commission of Georgia v. Clyde S. S. Co. 4 Inters. Com. Rep. 120, 5 I. C. C. Rep. 327,-cited on p. 64. San Bernardino Bd. of Trade v. Atchison, T. & S. F. R. Co. 3 Inters. Com. Rep. 138, 4 I. C. C. Rep. 114,—cited on pp. 235, 279. Shamberg v. Delaware, L. & W. R. Co. 3 Inters. Com. Rep. 502, 4 I. C. C. Rep. 660,-cited on p. 164. Trammell v. Clyde S. S. Co. 4 Inters. Com. Rep. 120, 5 I. C. C. Rep. 324,cited on p. 237. CASES DISTINGUISHED. Chamber of Commerce v. Chicago, M. & St. P. R. Co. 5 I. C. C. Rep. 511— distinguished on p. 158. Coxe Bros. & Co. v. Lehigh Valley R. Co. 3 Inters. Com. Rep. 460, 4 I. C. C. Rep. 535,-distinguished on p. 38. |