Rates to the port uncertain and flexible element. Pittsburg Plate Glass Co. v.
P., C., C. & St. L. Ry. Co. et al. 87.
Rates on, including refrigeration. Fain & Stamps v. A. C. L. R. R. Co.
et al. 529.
Where a shipper has paid an excessive rate he may recover as reparation
the difference between the rate paid and what would have been a reasonable
rate at the time, even though he may not ultimately be damaged by the pay-
ment of the higher rate. Burgess et al. v. Transcontinental Freight Bureau
et al. 668.
Above reasonable rate. Baer Bros. Mercantile Co. v. Mo. Pac. Ry. Co. et
al. 329.
Alleged. Ocheltree Grain Co. v. St. L. & S. F. R. R. Co. 46.
Ga. Rough & Cut Stone Co. v. Ga. R. R. Co. et al. 401.
Not satisfactory remedy for unreasonable billing. Romona Oolitic Stone Co.
v. C. I. & L. Ry. Co. et al. 569.
Oranges, C. L., St. Petersburg, Fla., to Atlanta, Ga. Fain & Stamps v.
A. C. L. R. R. Co. et al. 529.
If a rate is conditioned upon the shipper's assuming the entire risk of loss,
the condition is void as against loss due to the carrier's negligence or other
misconduct. In re Released Rates, 550.
That, upon all the facts disclosed, the rate adjustment on paper is not shown
to be unlawful. Weight to be given by Commission to a contract for establish-
ment of certain rates discussed and ruling in Commercial Club of Omaha v. C.
& N. W. Ry. Co., 7 I. C. C. Rep., 386, reaffirmed. Rhinelander Paper Co. v.
N. Pac. Ry. Co. et al. 633.
Rates under which practically no shipments move.
v. P., C., C. & St. L. Ry. Co. et al. 87.
Amarillo Gas Co. v. A., T. & S. F. Ry. Co. et al. 240.
Frye & Bruhn et al. v. N. Pac. Ry. Co. et al. 501.
Pittsburg Plate Glass Co.
Topeka Banana Dealers' Asso. v. St. L, & S. F. R. R. Co. et al. 620.
PARTIES.
Association competent to bring complaint. Forest City Freight Bureau v.
Ann Arbor R. R. Co. et al. 109.
Complainant is an association within the meaning of section 13 of the act and
is therefore competent to bring complaint before the Commission. Forest City
Freight Bureau v. Ann Arbor R. R. Co. et al. 118.
Defendant is guilty of unjust discrimination in refusing a special excursion
rate to parties of 10 or more persons in the employ of complainant, presented by
it for transportation between Nashville, Tenn., and Evansville, Ind., while ac-
cording said rate to parties of 10 or more persons of other avocations traveling
between the same points at the same time. Reparation awarded. Koch Secret
Service v. L. & N. R. R. Co. 523.
Must be open to the general public. Field v. Southern Ry. Co. et al. 298.
Banana rates to Chicago and Kansas City since 1893. Topeka Banana
Dealers' Asso. v. St. L. & S. F. R. R. Co. et al. 620.
Hardwood lumber between Memphis and New Orleans since 1883. Thomp-
son Lumber Co. et al. v. I. C. R. R. Co. et al. 657.
Jurisdiction over rates in the former Territory of Oklahoma. Hussey v.
C., R. I. & P. Ry. Co. 366.
Long maintained presumed remunerative. Detroit Chemical Works v. North-
ern Central Ry. Co. et al. 357.
Pecos and El Paso. Pecos Mercantile Co. v. A., T. & S. F. Ry. Co. et al. 173.
Rate sometime maintained, then advanced, again reduced, is in the nature
of an admission that this rate is fair unless explained. Ocheltree Grain Co. v.
St. L. & S. F. R. R. Co. 46.
Region west of Missouri River. Anthony Wholesale Grocery Co. v. A., T. &
S. F. Ry. Co. et al. 605.
Since the filing of tariffs. Cattle Raisers' Asso. of Texas v. M., K. & T. Ry.
Co. et al. 418.
Strong evidence of reasonableness of a rate. Burgess et al. v. Transconti-
nental Freight Bureau et al. 668.
Sugar from New Orleans to Nashville since 1897. Payne-Gardner Co. v.
L. & N. R. R. Co. 638.
Ga. Rough & Cut Stone Co. v. Ga. R. R. Co. et al. 401.
Trunk line territory. Railroad Commission of Kentucky v. L. & N. R. R. Co.
et al. 300.
Re Demurrage on Privately Owned Tank Cars 378.
Rates on. Pittsburg Plate Glass Co. v. P., C., C. & St. L. Ry. Co. et al. 87.
POLICE POWER OF STATE.
Leonard v. K. C. S. Ry. Co. et al. 573.
The pooling of traffic by water carriers is plainly a matter over which this
Commission has no jurisdiction. Cosmopolitan Shipping Co. v. Hamburg-Amer-
ican Packet Co. et al. 266.
PORT DIFFERENTIALS.
Washburn-Crosby Co. v. Pa. R. R. Co. 40.
Movement of crop. Ruttle et al. v. P. M. R. R. Co. 179.
Rates on.
Hollis Stedman & Sons v. C. & N. W. Ry. Co. et al. 167.
To maintain a petition before this Commission for the recovery of excessive
freight charges it is not necessary that the payment of the freight should have
been made under protest. Baer Bros. Mercantile Co. v. Mo. Pac. Ry. Co. et al. 329.
The universal rule in the courts, also applicable to the Commission, seems to
be that, under a system of pleading which permits a proceeding for damages to
be instituted by the filing of a complaint, the statute of limitations does not
cease to run against the demand until the complaint has been filed setting up the
claim with sufficient particularity to make an issue. Until a definite cause of
action has been pleaded there is nothing to arrest the running of the statute.
All the elements fairly necessary to present the cause of action must be pleaded
in a complaint filed with the Commission. Mo. & Kan. Shippers' Asso. v. A., T.
& S. F. Ry. Co. 411.
Complainant's application for leave to amend its complaint, so as to make it
cover establishment of through routes and joint rates from and to La Salle over
its line to and from all points over defendant's line, is denied. The Commission
does not favor a practice of ingrafting an application for through routes and
joint rates onto a claim for reparation upon the basis of that here presented.
La Salle & Bureau County R. R. Co. v. C. & N. W. Ry. Co. 610.
Amendment to petition creating entirely new issue. Merchants' Traffic Asso.
v. N. Y., N. H. & H. R. R. Co. et al. 225.
Application for more specific findings. Cattle Raisers' Asso. of Texas v.
M., K. & T. Ry. Co. et al. 418.
Demurrer sustained.
ping Co. et al. 266.
Cosmopolitan Shipping Co. v. Hamburg-American Ship-
Exception to jurisdiction of Commission in reparation matters. Minneapolis
Threshing Machine Co. v. C., R. I. & P. Ry. Co. 128.
Form of complaint not warranting definite order. Anthony Wholesale Gro-
cery Co. v. A., T. & S. F. Ry. Co. et. al. 605.
Investigation not required by public interest or official duty, refused. Man-
ning v. C. & A. R. R. Co. et al. 125.
Jurisdictional questions ignored when complaint dismissed on facts. Eddle-
man et al. v. Midland Valley R. R. Co. 103.
Petition does not show "good cause in alleging train orders small. In re
Application of Ga. S. & Fla. Ry. Co., for extension of time to comply with the
Hours of Service Law, 134.
Rate established, reparation postponed for adjustment. Burgess et al. v.
Transcontinental Freight Bureau et al. 668.
Reliance Textile & Dye Works v. Southern Ry. Co. et al. 48.
Restoration of rate. Bunch Co. et al. v. C., R. I. & P. Ry. Co. et al. 377.
Upon the hearing complainant offered the findings and order of this Commis-
sion in the former case and insisted that this ought to be sufficient to establish
its right to an order in the present case; Held, that under the amended act the
entire matter must be tried de novo. Merchants' Traffic Assn. v. N. Y., N. H. &
H. R. R. Co. et al. 225
Chicago & Milwaukee Electric Ry. Co. v. Illinois Central R. R. Co., 13 I. C.
C. Rep., 20, cited and affirmed and the distinction made between the transporta-
tion requirements of mere loading points serving one or more farms, as de-
scribed in that case, and the more extensive requirements of small centers where
general merchandising is done and the products of the countryside are concen-
trated for shipment, and coal, lumber, and other commodities are brought in to
supply local needs. Cedar Rapids & Iowa City Ry. & L. Co. v. C. & N. W. Ry.
Co. 250.
The conclusions announced by the Commission in this case in its opinion of
August 16, 1905, are affirmed, and the rates therein pronounced excessive are
held to be still excessive and unreasonable. Cattle Raisers' Assn. of Texas v.
M., K. & T. Ry. Co. et al. 418.
Banner Milling Company case controlling. Thornton & Chester Milling Co. v.
D., L. & W. R. R. Co. et al. 37.
Washburn-Crosby Co. v. Erie R. R. Co. et al. 38.
Washburn-Crosby Co. v. L. V. R. R. Co. 39.
Cosmopolitan Shipping Company case followed. Lykes S. S. Line v. Commer-
cial Union et al. 310.
Haines case controlling. Gentry v. C., R. I. & P. Ry. Co. et al. 214, 219, 220,
222, 223, 224.
Northern Central Railway Company case followed. Detroit Chemical Works
v. Erie R. R. Co. et al. 363.
Party-rate case followed. Field v. So. Ry. Co. et al. 298.
Intermediate rate which does not permit disadvantageous competition from
point beyond does not create undue preference. Bovaird Supply Co. v. A., T. &
S. F. Ry. Co. et al. 56.
American Asphalt Assn. v. Uintah Ry. Co. 196.
Traer v. C. & A. R. R. Co. et al. 451.
Effect of rate on. Cattle Raisers' Assn. of Texas v. M., K. & T. Ry Co. et
al. 418.
While the right to use private cars may doubtless be denied to shippers by
appropriate legislation, in the absence of a specific enactment to that effect the
Commission is not prepared to say that their use in itself is unlawful; but if
their use results under a given set of circumstances in an unlawful advantage
to their owners and an unlawful disadvantage to other shippers, a question is
presented which under existing legislation is within the control of the Commis-
sion and may be made the basis of such relief as the facts may justify. Ruttle
et al. v. P. M. R. R. Co. 179.
Must be counted in distribution to mines. Traer v. C. & A. R. R. Co. et al. 451.
Subject to demurrage. In re Demurrage on Privately Owned Tank Cars, 378.
PROCEDURE.
Baer Bros. Mercantile Co. v. Mo. Pac. Ry. Co. et al. 329.
Cattle Raisers' Asso. of Texas v. M., K. & T. Ry. Co. et al. 418.
Chandler Cotton Oil Co. v. Ft. S. & W. R. R. Co. 473.
Field v. So. Ry. Co. et al. 298.
Merchants' Traffic Asso. v. N. Y., N. H. & H. R. R. Co. et al. 225.
From points west of Missouri River to St. Louis. Traffic Bureau, etc., of St.
Louis v. Mo. Pac. Ry. Co. et al. 11.
Kansas City to Cape Girardeau. North Brothers v. St. L. & S. F. R. R. Co.
Kansas City to Little Rock on bran. Marshall Michel Grain Co. v. Mo. Pac.
Ry. Co. 566.
At time of payment of freight money not necessarily prerequisite for
maintaining action for reparation. Baer Bros. Mercantile Co. v. Mo. Pac. Ry.
Co. et al. 329.
Petition of complainant asking for an order requiring defendant to reestab-
lish its station at Elder, Okla. (formerly Indian Territory), denied, because
the interest of the general public does not require it and such reestablishment
would be an unnecesary burden upon defendant.
Eddleman et al. v. Mid. al.
Cattle Raisers' Asso, of Texas v. M., K. & T. Ry. Co. et al. 418.
In re Released Rates, 550.
Traer v. C. & A. R. R. Co, et al. 451.
No official duty requiring investigation, it is refused. Manning v. C. & A.
R. R. Co, et al. 125.
Rates on. Rhinelander Paper Co. v. N. Pac. Ry. Co. et al. 633.
See also ABSORPTION; ADVANCES; BASING RATES; BLANKET RATES; CLASSI-
FICATION; CLASS RATES; COMBINATION RATES; COMMODITIES; COMMODITY
RATES; COMPETITION; CONCESSION; CONDITIONAL RATES; DIFFERENTIAL; DIS-
CRIMINATION; DISTANCE; DIVISIONS; EMERGENCY RATES; EXCURSION RATES;
Ex LAKE RATES; EXPRESS RATES; GRADED RATES; GROUP RATES; IMPORT
RATES; INDUSTRIAL RATES; INLAND CARRIAGE; INTERMEDIATE RATES; IN
TRANSIT; JOBBERS' RATES; JOINT RATES; LAKE AND RAIL RATES; LOCAL RATES;
MANUFACTURERS' RATES; MEASURE OF RATES; MILLING IN TRANSIT; MILEAGE
RATES; OCEAN RATES; PAPER RATES; PARTY RATES; PAST RATES; PERCENTAGE
RATES; PROPORTIONAL RATES; REASONABLE RATES; REDUCTION OF RATES; RELA-
TIVE RATES; RELEASED RATES; STATE RATES; SUSPENSION OF RATES; TERMINAL
CHARGES; TERRITORIAL RATES; THROUGH AND LOCAL RATES; TON PER MILE
RATES ZONE RATES.
The Commission does not approve the practice whereby a carrier puts in
rates with a clause under which they expire after a short time, for the pur-
pose of enabling the Commission to do justice in a particular case. In
order to prevent the discriminations which the act was intended to defeat,
the Commission, in such cases, will hereafter require the rates to remain
in effect for a definite period of time to be designated in the order. Holcomb-
Hayes Co. v. I. C. R. R. Co. et al. 16.
Defendant's regulations as to contents of packages shipped under estimated
weights have, in the past, been disregarded by complainant and laxly enforced
by defendant, resulting in charges less than provided in tariff for actual weight
shipped. Upon correction of those irregularities complaint was made that
rate was unreasonable and reparation was demanded; Held, That the rate
is not unreasonable, and that where a shipper has in effect received a reduced
rate on account of his own and carrier's irregularities, correction of those
irregularities can not be made the basis for an award of reparation.
plaint dismissed. Bannon v. Southern Express Co. 516.
Accepting less than published, no presumption latter unreasonable. Frye &
Bruhn et al. v. N. Pac. Ry. Co. et al. 501.
Based on value. A carrier may lawfully establish a scale of charges appli-
cable to a specific commodity and graduated reasonably according to value.
These rates must be applied in good faith, regard being had to the actual value
of the property offered for shipment. In re Released Rates, 550.
Disagreeing on divisions-defendants increased rates. New Albany Furni
ture Co. v. M. J. & K. C. R. R. Co. et al. 594.
Insufficient for carrier justifying rate to assert its rates are generally fair.
Reynolds v. Southern Express Co. 536.
Nebraska State Railway Commission . U. P. R. R.
Rail and lake. Wyman, Partridge & Co. v. B. & M. R. R. et al. 258.
|