CLASS RATES. See also CLASS AND COMMODITY RATES.
In General: Class rates in central territory are on a distance basis, while in eastern trunk-line territory they are generally on a group basis in which distances from producing points to various points of consumption to a considerable extent are disregarded. Cancellation of Commodity Rates on Sewer Pipe, 514 (533).
Bathtubs, iron, enameled: Fisher Supply Co. v. Alabama & V. Ry. Co., 711 (714-717).
Castings, Chromium-iron-nickel alloy, etc., and boxes: General Alloys Co. v. Akron, C. & Y. Ry. Co., 733.
Facings, foundry: United States Graphite Co. v. Baltimore & O. R. Co., 742.
Fruits and vegetables, in metal cans in boxes or barrels: Sumter Packing Co. v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co., 137.
Gum, Bakelite (synthetic): Bakelite Corp. v. Boston & Albany R., 581. Paper, wrapping, waxed, printed, in rolls, uncrated: White Cross Bakery v. Baltimore & O. R. Co., 425.
Idaho points north and west of Pocatello: Idaho v. Oregon S. L. R. Co., 501.
Jacksonville, Fla.: Class Rates to Jacksonville, Fla., 215.
New England Points: Concord Chamber of Commerce v. Boston & M. R., 183.
Sioux Falls, S. Dak.: Sioux Falls Chamber of Commerce v. Great Northern Ry. Co., 555.
A transaction between Boston & Maine Railroad and Dwight P. Robinson & Co., for design and construction of New North Station and other ter- minal facilities at Boston, Mass., which amounted to an aggregate expendi- ture of more than $50,000 in one year, found not in violation of the Clay- ton Antitrust Act, because the chairman of the board of directors of the railroad had, prior to the ratification of the contract by the carrier's executive committee, disposed of all his stock in the construction company and was no longer interested, directly or indirectly, substantially or other- wise, in the construction company, and such divestment was bona fide. Codman v. Boston & M. R., 552.
COMBINATION RATES. See also COMBINATION RULE.
No good reason was shown for continuing combination rates on fuller's earth between points in southwestern and southeastern territories, based on the river crossings, joint rates having been prescribed on numerous other commodities. Transcontinental Oil Co. v. Atlanta & St. A. B. Ry. Co., 322 (326).
COMBINATION RULE. See also COMBINATION RATES.
Combination rates assailed found not applicable, the applicable rates being those constructed in accordance with the so-called combination rule. Reparation awarded:
Fisher Lumber Corp. v. Cleveland, C., C. & St. L. Ry. Co., 93.
Lamb Lumber Co. v. Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co., 201.
Atlantic Lumber Co. v. Louisville & N. R. Co., 236.
Lehigh Portland Cement Co. v. Chesapeake & O. Ry. Co., 437. Lassiter & Co. v. Alabama G. S. R. Co., 512.
COMBINATION RULE-Continued.
Proposed restrictions of the application of the combination rule in construct- ing combination rates on granite, marble, or stone from points in Georgia, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Virginia to various interstate des- tinations, including points in western trunk-line territory and the south- west were found not justified. Such restrictions would have resulted in rate increases for which no justification was offered. Combination Rule on Granite, Marble, or Stone, 346.
The purpose of the combination rule was to prevent double increases in through rates resulting from the flat increases authorized by General Order No. 28 of the Director General of Railroads. Id. (346). The burden of the combination-rule shrinkage should probably not fall wholly on one carrier whose tariffs make specific reference to the combina- tion rule while the tariffs of its connections do not, but it does not neces- sarily follow that to restrict the application of the rule so that deductions will be made only from factors made subject to the combination rule by specific tariff provision, when and if there are at least two such factors applicable to contiguous portions of the through movement, is the proper method of relief. Id. (347).
Where one commodity factor is made subject to the combination rule by specific tariff provision, the rule must be applied to all the commodity factors in constructing the through rate. Id. (347).
Carriers desiring to cancel the combination rule or restrict its application may not do so by limiting deductions to those factors specifically made subject to the rule, but they may instead publish either joint or proportional rates from and to points between which they have knowledge of actual move- ment or where conditions make future movements reasonably certain, provided such rates are no higher than the existing combination rates treated by the combination rule. Id. (348).
Tariffs publishing the separate factors of the combination rate assessed did not refer to the combination rule, but the tariff governing one factor stated it was subject to rules published in Boyd's circular, a particular item of which referred to the combination rule. However, as that provi- sion applied only to rate factors determined pursuant to that item, and was not a rule for general application in connection with rates published in other tariffs, the rates charged were applicable. Moore & Munger . Atlanta & W. P. R. Co., 389.
Shipments of brick from Springfield, Ill., to Redfield, S. Dak., assessed com- bination rates reduced by the combination rule, were undercharged where a higher joint rate subject to an intermediate rule was in effect from St. Louis, Mo., to which Springfield is directly intermediate. Waiver of undercharges authorized. Sioux City Brick & Tile Co. v. Chicago & N. W.
The product of intermediate rates treated by a rule which results in some- thing less than the aggregate is not the aggregate within the meaning of section 4 of the act. Id. (406).
The publication of rates subject to a combination rule is not to be construed as a holding out by the carrier that it will absorb more than a rate pub- lished in a tariff making no reference to the rule, where such rate is less than the amount of the deduction authorized by the combination rule and no provisions for situations of this kind are made in the rule. In such a case the factor is reduced to zero. Lehigh Portland Cement Co. v. Chess- peake & O. Ry. Co., 437 (438).
COMBINATION RULE-Continued.
Although the commission has expressed disapproval of the combination rule as a method of rate making, the proposed cancellation of the application of the combination rule to rates on livestock from certain points in South Dakota west of Mobridge, S. Dak., to interstate destinations east thereof, which would result in numerous fourth-section departures, was found not justified. Rules for Combination Rates on Livestock, 629.
The purpose and effect of the so-called combination rule is to apply certain general increases to the through combination rates rather than to the sepa- rate factors. This is accomplished by deducting a specific amount from each factor and adding the same amount to the sum of the factors thus obtained. Where a carrier's tariff does not contain a reference to the rule it is entitled to its full local or proportional rate in making combination rates and the carrier or carriers publishing the rule must bear the entire reduction. Id. (630).
COMMODITY RATES. See also CLASS AND COMMODITY RATES.
A group commodity rate was a rate on a specific commodity within the mean- ing of an intermediate clause, which made the rates subject thereto appli- cable to intermediate points only where no rate was published on the spe- cific commodity. Federated Metals Corp. v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 242 (243-244).
Despite the apparent inconsistencies in the commodity rate structure between points in Idaho north and west of Pocatello and points on defendants' lines in California Group 1 territory, and points on the Southern Pacific in Nevada via the Rogerson-Wells cut-off, no sufficient basis was found in the record for an affirmative finding, inasmuch as rates on all commodities were assailed but with little or no evidence as to the volume of movement of any commodity. Rates assailed found not unreasonable or otherwise unlawful. Idaho v. Oregon S. L. R. Co., 501 (508). COMMON CONTROL, MANAGEMENT, OR ARRANGEMENT. The commission's disapproval of proposed changes under which respondent sought to move traffic over a terminal in which it had a proprietary inter- est, instead of over protestant's line, did not violate the provisions of sec- tion 15 (4) of the act, since that terminal was not operated in conjunction and under a common management or control with respondent, within the meaning of that section. Absorption of Switching Charges, 129 (132).
A comparison of rates without a showing of values, volume of traffic, length of hauls, minimum weights, average loadings, and earnings is of little probative value. Baird Machine Co. v. New York, N. H. & H. R. Co., 70 (71). Comparison with rates on various commodities, unsupported by other facts, was of little value in determining the reasonableness of the rates on the commodity involved. Fredonia Linseed Oil Works v. Missouri Pac. R. Co., 151 (153).
A comparison which was predicated on the established minima rather than the average car loadings was of little probative value. Dennery v. Houston & Texas Central R. Co., 164 (168). Where transportation conditions and other essential details were not shown to be similar, a comparison of rates on collapsible fruit and vegetable crates with lumber rates was of little evidentiary value. Owosso Mfg. Co. v. Asherton & Gulf Ry. Co., 219 (222).
COMPARATIVE RATES-Continued.
In General-Continued.
From the mere fact that rates on scrap iron and bituminous coal are the same between two points it does not follow that the rates on the latter commodity should be accepted as a standard by which to determine the reasonableness of rates on scrap iron between two other points. American Hide & Fur Co. v. Chicago, M., St. P. & P. R. Co., 481 (482). Commodities:
Baskets and hampers, fruit and vegetable, vs. lumber.
Atchison, T. & S. F. Ry. Co., 133 (135).
Bathtubs, enameled-iron, vs. other enameled-iron plumbers' goods. Fisher Supply Co. v. Alabama & V. Ry. Co., 711 (716).
Beverage cooling and dispensing outfits vs. refrigerators, wooden water coolers, etc. Southern Traffic & Audit Asso. v. Missouri-K-T. R. Co., 361 (365).
Board, wall, fibre, vs. board, wall, plaster. Upson Co. v. Ann Arbor R. Co., 586 (596).
Board, wall, fibre, vs. Paper, building and roofing, etc. Upson Co. v. Ann Arbor R. Co., 586 (605).
Brick, common, from the Southwest, vs. commodities in the uniform brick list. Builders' Asso. of Kansas City v. Chicago, B. & O. R. Co.,
403 (404). Castings, chromium-nickel alloy, burnt out, new or old and boxes or pots, annealing or carbonizing, chromium-iron-nickel, new or burnt out, vs. castings, iron or steel, and boxes or pots, annealing or car- bonizing, iron or steel, scrap iron, etc. General Alloys Co. v. Akron, C. & Y. Ry. Co., 733.
Clay, crude, vs. common brick. Pfaltzgraff Pottery Co. v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 559.
Coal, fine, vs. lump coal. Watab Paper Co. v. Northern Pac. Ry. Co., 37 (39-40).
Cores, paper-winding, returned, vs. iron and steel pipe; shafts, without fittings, key leaved or key seated; and other machinery parts. can Newspaper Publishers Asso. v. Bangor & A. R. Co., 729. Crane, locomotive, on its own wheels, vs. locomotive on its own wheels. Brown Florida Lumber Co. v. Louisville & N. R. Co., 440 (441). Crates, collapsible wooden fruit and vegetable, vs. lumber. Owosso Mfg. Co. v. Asherton & Gulf Ry. Co., 219 (221-222).
Designs, floral, vs. artificial flowers or foliage. May Co. v. Reading Co., 211.
Facings, foundry, made from soapstone, hard coal, and coke vs. foundry facings made from graphite and ground coal. United States Graphite Co. v. Baltimore & O. R. Co., 742.
Fuller's earth vs. kaolin or china clay, common clay, etc. Transconti- nental Oil Co. v. Atlanta & St. A. B. Ry., Co., 322 (324).
Glass, window, vs. Bottles, glass. Budge Co. v. Baltimore & O. R. Co., 399.
Gum, Bakelite (synthetic) vs. rubber, crude. Bakelite Corp. v. Boston & Albany R., 581 (584).
Insecticide spreader vs. Insecticides. Hercules Glue Co. v. Great North- ern Ry. Co., 445.
Lead, pig, vs. lead-pipe fittings. Fisher Supply Co. v. Alabama & V. Ry. Co., 711 (713).
COMPARATIVE RATES-Continued.
Commodities-Continued.
Limestone, rough and dressed, vs. rough and dressed marble, copper articles, and brick. O'Meara v. Baltimore & O. R. Co., 785.
Machinery, cotton-gin, vs. agricultural implements. Artesia Alfalfa Growers Asso. v. Atchison, T. & S. F. Ry. Co., 50.
Mica, ground, vs. foundry facings and graphite. United States Graphite Co. v. Grand Trunk W. Ry. Co., 269.
Oil, china-wood, vs. vegetable oils and lubricating oil. Valentine & Co. v. Lehigh Valley R. Co., 781 (783, 784).
Oil, linseed, vs. vegetable oils. Fredonia Linseed Oil Works v. Missouri Pac. R. Co., 151 (152).
Oil, red, vs. packing-house products. Procter & Gamble Co. v. Alabama G. S. R. Co., 547 (549).
Paper, wrapping, vs. box board and newsprint paper. Equitable Paper Bag Co. v. New York, N. H. & H. R. Co., 115.
Paper, wrapping, waxed, printed, in rolls, uncrated, vs. paper, wrapping, waxed, printed, in rolls, crated. White Cross Bakery v. Baltimore & O. R. Co., 425.
Peanuts, shelled, vs. unshelled. Gordon Candy Co. v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co., 563 (564).
Pins, insulator, wooden, vs. lumber. American Cross Arm Co. v. Southern Ry. Co. 273.
Pipe, sewer, vs. brick. Cancellation of Commodity Rates on Sewer Pipe, 514 (532).
Pipe, wrought-iron, used, vs. oil-well derricks, old rails, and scrap iron. Shreveport Chamber of Commerce v. Kansas City S. Ry. Co., 737. Planters, corn and potato, vs. various agricultural implements. Potato Implement Co. v. Ann Arbor R. Co., 477.
Pulp, sulphite wood, vs. lumber. Watab Paper Co. v. Chicago & N. W. Ry. Co., 335.
Rice, clean, vs. sugar. Lake Charles Harbor & Term. Dist. v. Brimstone R. & C. Co., 720.
Rock, ground bituminous asphalt, vs. cement. Quinn Co. v. Atlanta, B. & A. Ry. Co., 571 (574–576).
Salt, cake, vs. pulp, wood, lime, sulphur, and china clay. Advance Bag & Paper Co. v. Central R. Co., of N. J., 317.
Sand, sea, or fire, vs. sand, molding. Gleason Works v. New York, N. H. & H. R. Co., 59 (62).
Slag, roofing, vs. Ordinary slag, crushed stone, silica sand, and sea sand. Cartier & Sons Co. v. New York, N. H. & H. R. Co., 649.
Ties, railroad, vs. rough lumber, timbers, etc. Arkansas Tie & Timber Co. v. St. Louis-S. F. Ry. Co., 206.
Tools, oil-well, vs. metal automobile parts, machinery and machines, etc. Dunn Mfg. Co. v. Atchison, T. & S. F. Ry. Co., 798. COMPETITION. In General:
Rates between competitive points, such as Birmingham, Ala., and Athens, Ga., have their origin in depressed rates reflecting the so-called basing- point system, under which the rates between competitive points are relatively lower than rates to, from, and between other points where such competition does not exist. Globe Superior Corp. v. Southern Ry. Co., 456 (457).
« ПредишнаНапред » |