Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

New Albany Furniture Co. v. M. J. & K. C. R. R. Co. et al. 594.

Absorption not required. Mo. & Kan. Shippers' Assn, v. A. T. & S. F. Ry. Co.
et al 411

Absorption of. Leonard v. K. C. S. Ry. Co. et al. 573.

Refused when coming from other lines. Cardiff Coal Co. v. C., M. & St. P.
Ry. Co, et al. 460.

Violation of tariff. Wellington et al. v. St. L. & S. F. R. R. Co. 534.
With charge. Wagner, Zagelmeyer & Co. v. D. & M. Ry. Co. et al. 160.

TANK CARS

Re Demurrage on Privately Owned Tank Cars, 378.

TARIFFS.

The carrier should publish, or post for convenient inspection, at frequent
and regular intervals, the ratings of the various mines and the car tonnage
received by them within the period covered by the report; in cases where com-
mercial mines have received more or less than their equitable pro rata of the
car tonnage during any particular period, the overplus or shortage for such
mines should be adjusted, as far as possible, within the period next succeeding,
and such correction should be shown in the subsequent reports. Royal Coal &
Coke Co. v. Southern Ry. Co. 410.

Tariffs which apply rates upon commodities according to their use are im-
proper. The carrier has no right to attempt to dictate the uses to which com-
modities transported by it shall be put. The duty of a common carrier is to
transport commodities at its tariff rates and on equal conditions for all. Ft.
Smith Traffic Bureau v. St. L. & S. F. R. R. Co. et al. 651.

The concurrent existence of two separate and distinct rates on the same com-
modity is condemned when the traffic moves over the same route in the same
direction, between the same points, and the carriers, by their published tariffs,
assume to charge one rate or the other according to the ultimate use to which
the commodity is to be put. Id.

Administrative ruling for transit privileges. Commercial Club of Duluth v.
N. P. Ry. Co, et al. 288.

Allowances not specified can not be paid. La Salle & Bureau County R. R. Co.
v. C. & N. W. Ry. Co. 610.

Designated, to be filed. Cosmopolitan Shipping Co. v. Hamburg-American
Packet Co, et al. 266.

Every service offered must have its rate. Memphis Freight Bureau v. Ft. S.
& W. R. R. Co. et al. 1.

Express rates on fish. Bannon v. Southern Express Co, 516.
Misleading rules and regulations mischievous. In re Released Rates, 550.

Multigraphs sometimes used for printing. Forest City Freight Bureau v. A.,
T. & S. F. Ry. Co. et al. 295.

Obscure and general clauses in voluminous tariffs for lowest combinations
result in gross misapplication of the tariffs. Hydraulic Press Brick Co. v. St. L.
& S. F. R. R. Co. et al. 342.

Omission of distance scale with commodity tariff by express company. Mer-
chants' Traffic Asso. v. Pacific Express Co. 131.

Practice of short-term rates for particular case not approved. Holcomb-
Hayes Co. v. I. C. R. R. Co. et al. 16.

Proportional rates. Marshall Michel Grain Co. v. Mo. Pac. Ry. Co. 566.
Provision as to cargo of grain. England & Co. v. B. & O. R. R. Co. 614.

Provisions of, should be fair and unambiguous and free from suspicion of
illegality. In re Released Rates, 550.

Return shipments. Minneapolis Threshing Machine Co. v. C., R. I. & P. Ry.
Co. 128.

Ship's side. Ft. Smith Traffic Bureau 1". St. L. & S. F. R. R. Co. et al. 651.
Short notice. Merchants' Traffic Asso. v. Pacific Express Co. 131.

Transportation of hogs-transcontinental. Frye & Bruhn et al. v. N. Pac. Ry.
Co. et al. 501.

Western coal rates. Laning-Harris Coal & Grain Co. v. St. J. & G. I. R. R.
Co. 317.

TERMINAL CHARGES AND FACILITIES.

The rates prescribed to Chicago are held to be sufficient to carry a delivery at
the Union Stock Yards, and the imposition of any terminal charge in excess of
$1 is declared unreasonable. Cattle Raisers' Asso. of Texas v. M., K. & T.
Ry. Co. et al. 418.

Allowances for services not specified in tariffs can not be ordered. La Salle
& Bureau County R. R. Co. v. C. & N. W. Ry. Co. 610.

The second paragraph of section 3 of the act, providing that no carrier shall
be required to give the use of its tracks and terminal facilities to another
carrier engaged in like business, has no application to such a state of facts as
this record presents. From no point of view is this a proceeding to acquire the
use of one line by another; it is simply an effort on the part of complainant to
reach certain interstate points with its coal. Cardiff Coal Co. v. C., M. & St. P.
Ry. Co. et al. 460.

TERRITORIAL RATES.

Johnston v. C., R. I. & P. Ry. Co. 214.
Gist v. C., R. I. & P. Ry, Co. et al. 214.
Gentry v. C., R. I. & P. Ry. Co. et al. 257.
Hussey v. C., R. I. & P. Ry. Co. 366.

The provision of the act to regulate commerce applying to carriers transport-
ing property ' from one place in a territory to another place in the same
territory," so far as it related to the territory of Oklahoma, expired by its own
force on November 16, 1907, when Oklahoma was admitted as a State. Com-
plaint dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Chandler Cotton Oil Co. v. Ft. S. &
W. R. R. Co. 473.

THEATRICAL COMPANIES.

Field v. Southern Ry. Co, et al. 298.

THROUGH AND LOCAL RATES.

Generally joint through rates lower than locals. Laning-Harris Coal & Grain
Co. v. Mo. P. Ry. Co. et al. 154.

Coonies & McGraw v. C., M. & St. P. Ry. Co. et al. 192.
Hydraulic Press Brick Co. v. St. L. & S. F. R. R. Co. et al. 342.

THROUGH BILLING.

Evidence of arrangement for continuous carriage. Cosmopolitan Shipping
Co. v. Hamburg-American Packet Co, et al. 266.

Rule not to issue unless steamer in sight. Thompson Lumber Co. et al. v.
I. C. R. R. Co. et al. 657.

THROUGH RATES.

Complaint alleges unreasonable through rates on cotton seed from points on
Fort Smith and Western Railroad to Memphis, Tenn. Class A rates then in
force were admitted to be unreasonable, and defendant, by leave, amended its
answer by stating that it had established through rates equal to the sums of
the local rates of the several carriers, based on Fort Smith. Later, and before the case had been submitted, defendant Fort Smith and Western Railroad increased its local rates, and still later, and before decision had been rendered, filed a tariff of through rates carrying corresponding increases in rates. Memphis Freight Bureau v. Ft. S. & W. R. R. Co. et al. 1.

This rate to Denver is not a joint through rate, but is made up of the local rate from New England to St. Louis plus the rate from St. Louis to Denver, or in some cases from St. Louis to Kansas City and from Kansas City to Denver. The Commission might perhaps order a reduction of these several locals to such an extent as to bring the entire rate within the figure named by us; but the Commission would be passing upon a through rate from New England to Denver, and no such rate is now in existence. The proper method to follow in cases like this, where no joint rate exists, is to cite before the Commission the proper defendants and pray for the establishment of a through route and joint rate. Upon a petition of that sort the Commission has power to do justice both to Denver and etween the different carriers participating in the transportation. Merchants' Traffic Asso. v. N. Y., N. H. & H. R. R. Co. et al. 225.

Canceled. Cattle Raisers' Asso. of Texas v. M., K. & T. Ry. Co. et al. 418.

Strictly local shipment, and through rate not applicable. Laning-Harris Coal & Grain Co. v. Mo. Pac. Ry, Co, et al. 154.

THROUGH ROUTES.

On complaint of failure of defendants to establish a through route and joint rate on lumber, lath, and shingles from Ashland, Tex., to Nash, Okla., it appeared that there formerly existed joint rates over two established routes between these points, but that they have been recently canceled; Held, That there is at the present time no satisfactory through route or joint rate for the shipment of such commodities between said points, and that a joint through rate of 281 cents per 100 pounds should be established over a through route specified herein. Gentry v. A., T. & S. F. Ry. Co. et al. 171.

Upon complaint showing failure of defendants to establish through routes and joint rates for transportation of cotton seed, in carloads, from certain points on Midland Valley Railroad in Oklahoma to Little Rock, Ark.; Held, That failure of defendants to establish such routes and rates unduly discriminates against complainant in favor of manufacturers at Fort Smith, Ark., and Muskogee, Ind. T. Merchants' Freight Bureau of Little Rock, Ark., V. Midland Valley R. R. Co. et al. 243.

While the Commission's power to establish a through route and joint rate is limited to particular cases where a reasonable or satisfactory through route does not already exist, yet such power is not confined to cases where enforcement of other provisions of the regulating statute is sought. Cardiff Coal Co. 1. C., M. & St. P. Ry. Co, et al. 460.

Complainant asks for the establishment of through routes and joint rates over the St. Paul in connection both with the Wabash Railroad and the Chicago,' Indiana & Southern. If reasonable and satisfactory through routes existed to the points in question over one of those connecting lines, it would not be competent for the complainant to ask for the establishment of through routes to the same points over the other connecting line. Nor does the Commission regard it as competent, unless there are special circumstances justifying it, for a shipper, in the absence of any reasonable or satisfactory through routes, to ask for the establishment of such routes over two connecting lines. Id.

Authority to establish only when none satisfactory in existence. Hollis Stedman & Sons v. C. & N. W. Ry. Co. et al. 167.

Carriers forming not independent and distinct entities. Baer Bros. Mer-
cantile Co. v. Mo. P. Ry. Co. et al. 329.

Continuous service. Memphis Freight Bureau v. Ft. S. & W. R. R. Co.
et al. 1.

Divisions of joint rate need not be published. Cosmopolitan Shipping Co. v.
Hamburg-American Packet Co. et al. 266.

Leave to amend complaint to cover through routes denied, La Salle & Bu-
reau County R. R. Co. v. C. & N. W. Ry. Co. 610.

No satisfactory route in operation—through route order. Cedar Rapids &
Ia. City Ry, & L. Co. v. C. & N. W. Ry, Co. 250.

Order establishing through routes. Cardiff Coal Co. v. C. & N. W. Ry. Co.
et al. 471.

Partly by railroad and partly by water. Leonard v. K. C. S. Ry. Co.
et al. 573.

Satisfactory through route already supplied. Chicago & Milwaukee Electric
R. R. Co. v. I. C. R. R. Co. et al. 20.

Traffic not promptly delivered, route can not be said to be satisfactory. Ben-
ton Transit Co. v. Benton Harbor-St. Joe Ry. & L. Co. 512.

TON PER MILE RATES.

Bananas from New Orleans. Topeka Banana Dealers’ Asso. et al. v. St. L. &
S. F. R. R. Co. et al. 620.

Coal, Rock Spring. Web. State Ry. Commission v. U. P. R. R. Co. 349.

First class New York and Chicago. Railroad Commission of Kentucky v.
L. & N. R. R. Co. et al. 300.

Furniture to Atlantic ports. New Albany Furniture Co. v. M., J. & K. C.
R. R. Co. et al. 594.

Iron pyrites westward. Detroit Chemical Works v. Northern Central Ry. •
Co, et al. 357.

Less in Official than in Western territory. Rhinelander Paper Co. v. N. Pac.
Ry. Co. et al. 633.

Live stock. Cattle Raisers' Asso. of Texas 1. M., K. & T. Ry. Co, et al. 418.

Lumber east to west between Chicago and Pacific coast points. Burgess et
al. v. Transcontinental Freight Bureau et al. 668.

Lumber on Illinois Central. Thompson Lumber Co. et al, v. I. C. R. R. Co.
et al. 657.

Prescribed by Commission higher than now in effect. Haines v. C., R. I. &
P. Ry. Co. et al. 214.

TRADE CENTER.

Commercial center with many commodities different from one with traffic
limited in variety. Chicago & Milwaukee Electric R. R. Co. v. I. C. R. R. Co.
et al. 20.

More extensive requirements than one or more farms. Cedar Rapids & Iowa
City Ry. & Light Co. v. C. & N. W. Ry. Co. 250.

Recognition as trade center can not justify rates which result in undue pref-
erence. Payne-Gardner Co. v. L. & N. R. R. Co. 638.

TRANSFER.

At junction points. Memphis Freight Bureau v. Ft. S. & W. R. R. Co. et
al. 1.

Cotton seed at Hartford to the Rock Island cars. Merchants' Freight Bureau
of Little Rock, Ark., v. Midland Valley R. R. Co. 243.

Hay in private cars. Ruttle et al. v. P. M. R. R. Co. 179.
Re Rates, Practices, etc., of Carriers subject to the Act, 212.

ULTRA VIRES.

Doctrine as related to railroad hotels, etc., not passed upon. American
Asphalt Asso. v. Uintah Ry. Co. 196.

UNDERCHARGE.

Upon discovery that shipments have through mistake been moved at an
unlawful rate the carrier should forthwith demand and the shipper forthwith
pay the difference between such unlawful rate and the legal rate applicable
thereto. Bovaird Supply Co. v. A., T. & S. F. Ry. Co. et al. 56.

Alleged. Hydraulic Press Brick Co. v. A., T. & S. F. Ry. Co. et al. 342.

UNIFORM ACCOUNTS.

System recently promulgated under statutory authority. Cattle Raisers'
Asso. of Texas v. M., K. & T. Ry. Co. et al. 418.

UNIFORM BILL OF LADING.

Contains certain provisions similar to Western Classification. In re Released
Rates, 550.

UNREASONABLE RATES.

The present rate of $1.85 per ton on shipments of slack coal from Weir and
Midway, Kans., to Goltry, Okla., is unreasonable and should not exceed $1.50
per ton. Haines v. C., R. I. & P. Ry, Co. et al. 214.

Complaint alleges that rates charged by defendant for the transportation
of coal from Rock Springs and Hanna, Wyo., to points in Nebraska are unrea-
sonable. Nebraska State Ry. Commission v. U. P. R. R. Co. 349.

The rate of $4.50 per ton applying on lump coal from Rock Springs and $3.50
per ton from Hanna to points in Nebraska on the line of defendant between the
Nebraska-Wyoming boundary and Grand Island, including the latter point and
points on the branch line from Kearney to Callaway, Nebr., are unjust and
unreasonable. Just and reasonable rates prescribed. Id.

The rate of $3.32 per ton of 2,240 pounds on imported iron pyrites in carloads
from New York to Detroit is now and was during the time it was in effect
unreasonable and unjust, and should not exceed $2.81 per ton. Reparation
awarded. Detroit Chemical Works v. Erie R. R. Co. et al. 363.

A rate of 90 cents per 100 pounds, minimum 60,000 pounds, for the trans-
portation of ground iron ore from Chicago and Chicago points to Pacific coast
terminals is excessive, and should not exceed 60 cents per 100 pounds. Winters
Metallic Paint Co. v. A., T. & S. F. Ry. Co. et al. 409.

Additional charge on unreleased shipment of 20 per cent unreasonable. In
re Released Rates, 550.

Advanced rate from December, 1906, to February, 1907, excessive. Ocheltree
Grain Co. v. St. L. & S. F. R. R. Co. 46.

Advanced rates unreasonable unless B. L. includes marine insurance. Wy-
man, Partridge & Co. et al. v. B. & M. R. R. et al. 258.

Advances condemned as unreasonable. New Albany Furniture Co. v, M., J.
& K. C. R. R. Co. et al. 594.

Beer, Pueblo to Leadville, 45 cents. Baer Bros. Mercantile Co. v. Mo. Pac.
Ry. Co. et al. 329.

Brick, Cheltenham, Mo., to New Iberia, La. Hydraulic Press Brick Co. v.
St. L. & S. F. R. R. Co. et al. 342.

Broom corn, through rates unreasonable as far as they exceed locals.
Coomes & McGraw v. C., M. & St. P. Ry. Co, et al. 192.

Cattle, Leon, Kans., to Chicago, by 21 cents per 100 pounds. Morti v. C., M.

« AnteriorContinuar »