« AnteriorContinuar »
not with reasonable particularity specify and describe the shipments as to
Rates from eastern destinations to Denver are constructed by adding together
Southern points to Ohio River. Reliance Textile & Dye Works v. Southern
A rate of 45 cents applied to the transportation of beer from Pueblo to Lead-
Mixed carloads with mineral water. Milwaukee-Waukesha Brewing Co. 1'.
BILL OF LADING.
It is a mischievous practice for carriers to publish in their tariffs and on
The defendants advanced their through rates from eastern points to Chicago
Exhibit as shipping receipt. Leonard v. K. C. S. Ry. Co. et al. 573.
Manipulation of billing in reshipment. Traffic Bureau, etc., of St. Louis v.
Provisions of, should be fair and unambiguous and free from suspicion of
State road, by giving through billing, becomes an interstate carrier. Cos-
Weights, failure to correct billing after ascertaining actual weights. Romoną
Value and rates to Pacific coast. Burgess et al. 1. Transcontinental Freight
Coal for Nebraska points from Rock Springs and Hanna. Nebraska State Railway Commission v. U. P. R. R. Co. 349.
General over territory between Missouri River and Chicago common points. Bovaird Supply Co. v. A., T. & S. F. Ry. Co. et al. 56.
Transcontinental lines. Phillips-Trawick-James Co. et al. v. So. Pac. Co. et al. 644.
Burgess v. Transcontinental Freight Bureau et al. 668.
Rates not necessarily the same. Bureau et al. 668.
Burgess et al. 1. Transcontinental Freight
Enameled brick and press brick, description and rates. Hydraulic Press Brick Co. v. St. L. & S. F. R. R. Co. et al. 342.
Paving brick, rates on, from Galesburg, Ill., and Kansas points. Lincoln Commercial Club v. C., R. I. & P. Ry. Co. et al. 319.
At Memphis on lumber and staves. Thompson Lumber Co. v. I. C. R. R. Co. et al. 657.
Rates on. Coomes & McGraw v. C., M. & St. P. Ry. Co. et al. 192.
Classification of. al. 109.
Forest City Freight Bureau v. Ann Arbor R. R. Co. et
The inclusion of wire brushes and brooms, not toilet, in cases in less than carloads, in the first class is unreasonable. Defendants ordered to classify such brushes and brooms in the third class. Forest City Freight Bureau v. Ann Arbor R. R. Co. et al. 109.
Rates on. Chicago & Milwaukee Elec. R. R. v. I. C. R. R. Co. et al. 20.
Rates on rope cable. Bovaird Supply Co. v. A., T. & S. F. Ry. Co. et al. 56.
While defendants' rate on camera and camera stands from St. Louis to Denver is high, it is not so excessive as to warrant interference. Merchants' Traffic Asso. V. A., T. & S. F. Ry. Co. et al. 283.
CANAL AND LAKE.
Route, through rate, Erie Canal to Buffalo and thence via Great Lakes and rail. Wyman, Partridge & Co. et al. v. B. & M. R. R. et al. 258.
On shipments of pyrites, New York to Buffalo. Detroit Chemical Works. v. Nor, Cent. Ry. Co. et al. 357.
Phillips-Trawick-James Co. et al. v. So. Pac. Co, et al. 644.
In this case to take same rate as bituminous. Goff-Kirby Coal Co. et al. 1. B. & L. E. R. R. Co. 383.
This is equally true of the capitalization of the defendants in this proceeding, which bears no relation whatever to the actual investment necessary to the conduct of the business. Kindel v, Adams Express Co. et al. 475.
Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Ry. Co. Cattle Raisers' Asso. of Texas v. M., K. & T. Ry. Co. et al. 418.
Increase in rate not justified on account of delay an outgrowth of general congestion throughout the country. Thompson Lumber Co. et al. v, I. C. R. R. Co. et al. 657.
Complaint alleges that the method of car distribution known as the oven basis,” enforced by defendant railway company in the Pocahontas Flat Top coal district in West Virginia, unduly discriminates against complainant, and asks that the so-called “capacity basis” of car distribution be adopted; Held, upon all the facts and circumstances in the case, that the coke-oven basis does not fairly measure the relative rights of the various operators in said coal district, but unduly discriminates against complainant and operates to the unreasonable preference of other mining companies in the same field. Powhatan Coal & Coke Co. v. N. & W. Ry. Co. et al. 69.
Complaint alleges that since July 13, 1906, the Detroit & Mackinac Railway Company has discriminated against complainants in furnishing cars for interstate shipments of ice from Tobico, Mich., and that rates charged by defendants on ice from Tobico to points in Ohio are unreasonable; Held, under the circumstances disclosed by the record, that complainants were not unduly prejudiced in their car supply, and that the joint rates on ice from Tobico to points in Ohio are not shown to be unreasonable per se or relatively. Complaint dismissed. Wagner, Zagelmeyer & Co. v. Det. & Mac. Ry: Co. et al. 160.
The plan of car distribution practiced by the defendant was unduly preferential of the fuel-contract mines, and resulted in an unreasonable disadvantage to the purely commercial lines. Royal Coal & Coke Co. v. So. Ry. Co. 440.
In the matter of car distribution, where there is an inadequate supply of coal cars, the only regulation or practice in respect to the transportation of coal from the mines that is just, fair, and reasonable to be hereafter followed is to allow to each mine its fair and just proportion of the coal cars, estimated upon its justly ascertained capacity, and without regard to whether the mine furnishes partly fuel coal and partly commercial coal, or commercial coal only. Id.
In establishing systems of car distribution, defendants have given the mines located on their respective lines daily tonnage ratings, which ratings are not at issue in this controversy. Under the systems established, each mine is entitled daily to such percentage of cars as its tonnage rating bears to the total number of cars available for distribution for commercial purposes. Defendants' fuel cars, foreign railway fnel cars, and private cars are not cuarged against the distributive share of the mines to which they are assigned. Complainant contends that this plan of distribution gives to some mines more cars than they are entitled to under their several ratings, and unjustly discriminates against it and other mines and mine owners. Traer v. C. & A. R. R. Co, 451.
Reparation on account of alleged unjust discrimination of defendant in not furnishing complainant with his proper share of cars for shipment of grain at Wood River, Nebr., in November and December, 1906, while during that time complainant's competitors at that station were favored with grain cars, denied, as the testimony discloses that the time mentioned was during the car-shortage season, and that the business of complainant and his competitors suffered in common during that time, and no undue discrimination in furnishing cars by defendant was satisfactorily shown. MacMurray v. U. P. R. R. Co. 531.
Use by some dealers of the so-called “private” hay cars. Ruttle et al. v. P. M. R. R. Co. 179.
Certain shippers applied for cars to ship hay, which the carrier, by reason of car shortage, could not furnish at the time and place desired; the carrier informed the shippers that it had certain cattle cars which it could furnish if the shippers would clean and suitably prepare them for the shipments of their hay at their own cost and expense; the shippers accepted these cars upon these terms, cleaned and prepared them, and shipped their hay therein, and then claimed reparation for the cost and expense incurred by them; Held, upon the foregoing statement of facts, that the shippers' claim for reparation based on cost of preparing said cattle cars, be denied and their complaint be dismissed. Laning-Harris Coal & Grain Co. et al. v. St. L. & S. F. R. R. Co. et al. 148.
Because of defendant's insufficient equipment a number of worn-out cars no longer serviceable for interstate movements we acquired and fitted up by certain shippers for the transportation of their hay from local points on the Port Austin division of defendant's line to junction points with other lines, where the hay was transferred to empty system cars and moved forward to eastern markets; Held, that defendant's course in stopping its own cars as well as the cars in its control of connecting carriers, at such junction points, there to be loaded with hay from the “private" cars, instead of sending them up the line to the loading points where all the shippers might share in their distribution, was to the detriment and at the expense of the complainants and other independent dealers, and amounted to a denial to the complainants of the equal enjoyment of the facilities of defendant and was therefore an unlawful discrimination. Ruttle et al. v. P. M. R. R. Co. 179.
False floors for bananas. Topeka Banana Dealers' Asso. v. St. L. & S. F. R. R. Co. et al. 620.
Average on nitrate of soda. Ft. Smith Traffic Bureau V. St. L. & S. F. R. R. Co. et al. 651.
Shipments should be billed at actual weight. Romona Oolitic Stone Co. v. C., I. & L. Ry. Co. 569.
Allowance equal to three-fourths of 1 cent for each mile traveled. In re Demurrage on Privately Owned Tank Cars, 378.
Carriers pay each other 50 cents per day. Thompson Lumber Co. et al. v. Ill. Cent. R. R. Co, et al. 657.
Often recognized as one of the safest criterions as to earnings. Thompson
CAR SERVICE RULES.
Distribution of cars. Ruttle et al. v. P. M. R. R. Co. 179.
Observed by carriers and shippers. Coomes & McGraw v. C., M. & St. P. Ry.
Relative privileges of storage at St. Paul or Minneapolis and Duluth. Com-
The occupation, the user, and the consequent reduction of the available
Deficiency of equipment of defendant for four or five years. Ruttle et al. v.
Distribution of importance only during periods of shortage. Traer v. C. & A.
England & Co. v. B. & O. R. R. Co. 614.
CARS OFF LINE.
By concurrence, carriers obligate themselves to furnish cars for through
Carrier may send equipment from its line for the things that are essential
Custom for carrier having long haul to supply cars for through shipments.
Usual for carriers to do what they can to keep control of their own equip-
To coal yard not on line of carrier. Leonard v. K. C. S. Ry. Co. et al. 573.
Cattle Raisers' Assn. of Texas v. M., K. & T. Ry. Co. et al. 418.
Lincoln Commercial Club v. C., R. I. & P. Ry Co. et al. 319.
CIRCUMSTANCES AND CONDITIONS.
The Commission views with disfavor the maintenance of a lower rate for a
Dissimilar circumstances which justify under section 4 a greater charge for a