Графични страници
PDF файл
ePub

WAGON.

Joint tariff, carrier by wagon not competent to become party to, see "Rates," 823.

Higher rate on coal loaded from wagon than on coal loaded by tipple, see "Rates," 729.

Carrier by wagon not subject to Act.

1. The provisions of the Act do not apply to transportation by team or wagon. -Cary et al. v. Eureka Springs Ry. Co. et al., (1897) 7 I. C. C. R. 286.

WAGON MATERIAL.

See "Hub blocks."

WAREHOUSES.

Storage in warehouses, see "Storage." Charges for storage in, see "Storage charges."

WASTE.

See "Cotton goods."

[blocks in formation]

WATER COMPETITION.

See "Competition."

As element in fixing import and export rates, see "Rates," 1024-1035.

As ground for making lower rate for longer than for shorter haul, see "Long and short haul clause,'' 22-25, 36, 44, 49, 56, 65, 70-75, 78, 81, 83, 111. Between Atlantic and Pacific oceans, see "Rates," 85, 86.

Between Atlantic and Pacific oceans; extension of low all-rail rates westward to Missouri river, see "Rates," 968-975. Burden of proof to show existence of water competition, see "Rates,'' 1144. Carload rates to San Francisco resulting from water competition, see "Rates, 984, 993.

Differential between carload and less than carload rates resulting from water competition, see "Rates, 708.

Classification of waste, see "Classifica- Effect of, on rate on cotton-piece goods

tion,'' 68.

[blocks in formation]

from southern mills through Pacific ports to Orient, see "Rates,"

1051.

Export traffic, relation of rates, competition as clement affecting relation, see Missouri river, influence of, on rates, see "Rates," 1041-1051. "Competition,'' 21.

New England points through Pacific ports to Orient, cotton goods, effect of competition in fixing rate, see "Rates, 1036.

[ocr errors][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small]
[blocks in formation]

Carload rates, see "Rates,'' 982-1000. Change from net to gross weight, advance in rate occasioned by, see "Classification,'' 62.

Difference in carload minimum for car riage of competing commodities, see Rates," 674.

Difference in carload minimum on com

peting articles as basis for maintenance of differential, see "Rates,'' 680, 696. False weighing, see "False billing." Making rates on basis of weight, see 137, 138. "Rates," Minimum weight for carriage of mixed carloads of chair stock, mattress frame material and bed slats, see 66 'Rates, 1006.

[ocr errors]

Peaches, carload minimum for carriage of, see "Rates,'' 352, 354.

Standard for estimating rate per crate on vegetables, tariff must state whether standard is one of weight or dimensions, see "Schedules or tariff's,'' 59.

[blocks in formation]

RULE PRESCRIBING MINIMUM WEIGHT MUST BE STATED IN SCHEDULES, 2.

SCRIBED MINIMUM WOULD OCCASION INJURY TO SHIPMENT. CARRIER NOT REQUIRED TO INCREASE MINIMUM, 15. MINIMUM WEIGHT WITH WHICH BUT FEW SHIPPERS CAN COMPLY, 16. DIFFERENCE IN MINIMUM WEIGHTS FOR COMPETING COMMODITIES AS GROUND FOR MAINTENANCE OF DIFFERENTIAL, 17, 18.

CITRUS FRUIT, CALIFORNIA POINTS TO POINTS EAST OF MISSOURI RIVER, 19. HAY, LEDYARD, IA., TO MINNEAPOLIS, 20. PEACHES, ATLANTA, GA., TO NEW YORK, 21.

In general.

1. Rules for minimum carload weights which cannot be invariably enforced, or which, if so enforced, are plainly prejudicial to any class of shippers, cannot be regarded as lawful.-Suffern, Hunt & Co. v. Indiana, D. & W. Ry. Co., (1897) 7 I. C. C. R. 255, 282.

Rule prescribing minimum weight must be stated in schedules.

2.

A rule prescribing a minimum carload weight for a certain commodity necessarily affects or determines the rate on that commodity within the meaning of section 6 of the Act, and should therefore be stated upon the carrier's schedules of rates. Suffern, Hunt & Co. v. Indiana D. & W. Ry. Co., (1897) 7 I. C. C. R. 255. Change in minimum weight must be indicated on schedules.

3. A change in the minimum carload weight prescribed for a certain commodity, which advances or reduces the freight charge on that commodity, should be shown by printing new schedules or plainly indicating such change upon the sched

CHANGE IN MINIMUM WEIGHT MUST BE ules in force.-Suffern, Hunt & Co. v. Indi

INDICATED ON SCHEDULES, 3, 4.

ana, D. & W. Ry. Co., (1897) 7 I. C. C. R.

DUTY TO FURNISH CAR CAPABLE OF CAR-255, 278.
RYING MINIMUM WEIGHT PRESCRIBED,
5.

FAILURE TO FURNISH CAR OF SUFFI

CIENT SIZE — CHARGING FOR WEIGHT
NOT CARRIED, 6-8.

SUBSTITUTION OF SMALLER CARS,

9, 10.

REFUSAL OF CONNECTING CARRIER TO RECOGNIZE RULE OF MASTER CAR TIAL CARRIER, WHEREBY CHARGES ARE ASSESSED FOR WEIGHT NOT CARRIED, 11.

BUILDERS' ASSN., ENFORCED BY INI

ASSESSMENT OF REFRIGERATION
CHARGES UPON HIGHER MINIMUM
WEIGHT THAN NORMAL CAPACITY OF
CARS, 12.
MINIMUM WEIGHT BASED UPON MARKED
CAPACITY OF CAR FURNISHED, 13.
RULE PRESCRIBING FOR INCREASE IN
RATE ON EXCESS LOADED BEYOND
SPECIFIED WEIGHT ABOVE MARKED
CAPACITY OF CAR, 14.
WHEN LOADING IN EXCESS OF PRE

4. Defendant's rate schedules stated a general minimum carload weight for grain of 28,000 pounds. Circulars were later posted and filed with the Commission stating that the minimum weight of all cars loaded with grain would be 4,000 pounds less than the marked capacity of the cars, and all weight in excess of 4,000 pounds above marked capacity would be charged "less than carload rates."' The contents of these circulars were not afterwards shown on newly printed schedules, nor were they indicated upon the rate schedules in force at the time the circulars were stated to take effect. Held, that the regulations contained in such circulars had the effect of changing or determining the carrier's compensation for the transporta. tion of a given quantity of grain; that such regulations were therefore not bind

1

ing upon shippers because not stated upon the schedules of rates in force.-Suffern, Hunt & Co. v. Indiana D. & W. Ry. Co., (1897) 7 I. C. C. R. 255.

Duty to furnish car capable of carrying minimum weight prescribed.

5. A carrier, in defining a carload and fixing the rate, should furnish a car adapted to carry properly the quantity designated.-Rice, R. W. v. Western N. Y. & P. Rd., (1888) 2 I. C. C. R. 389, 2 I. C. R.

298.

Failure to furnish car of sufficient size

Charging for weight not carried.

6. It is manifestly unjust for the carrier, under a rule prescribing minimum carload weights, to charge for weight not carried in a car in which, on account of its size and the nature and bulk of the freight offered, the required minimum quantity cannot be loaded.-Suffern, Hunt & Co. v. Indiana, D. & W. Ry. Co., (1897) 7 I. C. C. R. 255, 282.

7. As a general rule, any regulation as to minimum carload weight, which permits the carrier to charge for weight not carried in a car in which, on account of its size and the nature and bulk of the freight offered, the required minimum cannot be loaded, is unjust.-National Hay Assn. v. Lake Shore & M. S. Ry. Co. et al., (1902) 9 I. C. C. R. 264, 305.

8. It is unreasonable that carriers unable to supply shippers with sufficient cars of large or average capacity should make such minimum loading requirements as cannot be practically complied with as to smaller cars, in order that they may obtain as much earnings from shipments therein as from those in larger and superior cars.-Wiemer & Rich v. Chicago & N. W. Ry. Co. et al., (1907) 12 I. C. C. R.

462.

Substitution of smaller cars.

$2.20 under a commodity rate on "furniture (new), all kinds'' carried in carloads with minimum weight of 12,000 pounds. Held, that while complainant was entitled to a car capable of carrying the minimum weight prescribed in the tariff, if the initial carrier did not have such car, it was entirely proper for it to permit the use of two smaller cars in lieu of the one car which it offered in its tariffs, but could not supply; that the carriers in the through route were bound to carry the cars at rate of $1.65 provided in their joint tariff, and that collection of the higher commodity rate was unlawful.-Pacific Purchasing Co. v. Chicago & N. W. Ry. Co. et al., (1907) 12 I. Č. C. R. 549.

10.

Where several connecting roads publish a joint tariff under which they hold themselves out to the public as prepared to transport commodities in carload lots of a certain minimum magnitude at a certain specified rate, such carriers are by their tariffs allowed to charge no more than that rate upon such carload, no matter what equipment they may provide for its transportation, except as the tariff in specific terms provides certain minimum weights for carloads in cars of certain lengths or capacities.-Pacific Purchasing Co. v. Chicago & N. W. Ry. Co. et al., (1907) 12 I. Č. C. R. 549.

Refusal of connecting carrier to recognize rule of Master Car Builders' Assn., enforced by initial carrier, whereby charges are assessed for weight not carried.

11. Complainant shipped quantity of 60-foot steel rails on twin cars via Baltimore & O. and Great Northern Railroads from Johnstown, Pa., to Seattle, Wash. By rules of the Master Car Builders' Association, enforced by the Baltimore & Ohio, complainant was not permitted to load the cars to a greater weight than 75 per cent of their marked capacity. The Great Northern enforced an arbitrary minimum, without regard to the requirements of the Master Car Builders' Association, and under this rule complainant was required to pay, on arrival of shipments at destination, for weight represented by the difference between marked capacity of cars and the weight actually carried. Held, that the rule adopted by the Great Northern whereby freight charges were assessable upon a

9. Complainant shipped 32,780 pounds of brass bedsteads from Kenosha, Wis., to Los Angeles, Cal. Class rate in effect between those points on beds, iron and brass, in carloads, subject to minimum weight of 30,000 pounds, was $1.65 per 100 pounds. This rate was a joint rate applicable to the through route over which the shipment moved. The initial carrier was unable to furnish car which would hold the minimum weight of brass beds pro-higher minimum loading requirement than vided for in the tariff, and instead thereof provided two small cars, making notation upon the through billing that such cars were furnished in lieu of proper equipment. The final carrier collected rate of

the practice of the carriers governed by the Master Car Builders' Association rules would permit, was unreasonable and unjust.-Cambria Steel Co. v. Great Northern Ry. Co., (1907) 12 I. C. C. R. 466.

Assessment of refrigeration charges upon higher minimum weight than normal capacity of cars.

carrier not required to increase mini

mum.

a

Minimum weight with which but few ship-
pers can comply.

15. Where a minimum carload weight 12. While minimum carload weights has been established for a particular comprescribed by defendants for transporta-modity, such as melons, and to load betion of peaches from Macon and Atlanta, yond the prescribed minimum would result Ga., to New York, Philadelphia, Baltimore in damage to the shipment, the carrier and Washington were 20,000 pounds for should not be required to establish 36-foot cars and 22,500 pounds for 40-foot higher minimum weight.-Loud v. South cars, the minimum upon which refrigera- Carolina Ry. Co. et al., (1892) 5 I. C. C. R. tion charges were assessed approximated 529, 542, 4 I. C. R. 205. 23,100 pounds for both sizes of cars, being on the basis of 550 crates, the weight of a standard crate of peaches being 42 pounds. The minimum of 550 crates was in excess of the normal capacity of the cars. Held, that the refrigeration charge should not exceed 11 cents per crate of 42 pounds on a carload minimum of 476 crates for 36-foot cars and 535 crates for 40-foot cars.-Waxelbaum & Co. v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. et al., (1907) 12 I. C. C. R. 178. Minimum weight based upon marked capacity of car furnished.

16. A carrier is not required to estab-
lish a differential between carload and less
than carload rates based upon an unusual
carload minimum with which but few ship-
pers can comply.-Planters' Compress Co.
v. Cleveland, C. C. & St. L. Ry. Co. et al.,
(1905) 11 I. C. C. R. 382.

Difference in minimum weights for com-
peting commodities as ground for main-
tenance of differential.

17. Lower carload minimum was estab-
lished on corn meal than on corn. Held,
that such lower minimum was a substan-
tial concession in favor of corn meal
which justified the maintenance of a rea-
sonable differential on that commodity
above rates on corn.-Re Rates on Corn
and Corn Products, (1905) 11 I. C. C. R.
220.

13. Defendant adopted a rule fixing minimum carload weights for grain at 4,000 pounds less than the marked capacity of cars furnished, but in no case less than 28,000 pounds. Minimum carload weights for grain products and other traffic were fixed without reference to marked capacity of cars. Held, that grain should not, any more than grain products or other traffic. be subjected to a variable or shifting rule 18. The rate on flour from points in of minimum carload weights; that such Kansas and other grain-producing sections different and varying minimum weights to Texas points was 5 cents per 100 pounds were unreasonable, and operated to sub- higher than on wheat. This differential ject shippers of grain to unjust discrimi- had been long maintained, although the nation and undue preference and disad-rate on wheat had in the meantime been vantage; that reasonable minimum carload weights should be fixed irrespective of the capacity of cars furnished by the carrier. -Suffern, Hunt & Co. v. Indiana, D. & W. Ry. Co., (1897) 7 I. C. C. R. 255.

Rule prescribing for increase in rate on excess loaded beyond specified weight above marked capacity of car.

reduced from 46 to 36 cents per 100
pounds. On the other hand, Kansas flour
was still in active competition in the
Texas market, and the Texas mills were
not unduly prosperous as compared with
those in Kansas. The minimum carload

of flour was only 24,000 pounds, while that
on wheat was from 35,000 to 40,000
the prescribed minimum.
pounds. Flour was seldom loaded beyond
The cost of

14. A properly established rule or regulation forbidding shippers to load grain cars beyond a specified weight above the transporting flour was therefore considermarked car capacity, and providing for ably greater than the cost of transportreasonable increase in rate on the excessing wheat. Held, that the Kansas miller loaded, is not unlawful if sufficient difference is preserved between such maximum and the minimum carload weight allowed by the carrier.-Suffern, Hunt & Co. v. Indiana, D. & W. Ry. Co., (1897) 7 I. C.

C. R. 255.

When loading in excess of prescribed minimum would occasion injury to shipment,

and Texas buyer of Kansas flour were
better off with the small minimum carload
and the higher differential than they would
be if the differential were somewhat re-
that the differential ought not to be dis-
duced and the minimum carload raised;

turbed.-Railroad Commission of Kansas
v. Atchison, T. & S. F. Ry. Co. et al.,
(1899) 8 I. C. C. R. 304.

[ocr errors]

Citrus fruit, California points to points II. east of Missouri river.

MINIMUM WEIGHTS FOR LESS
THAN CARLOAD LOTS.

Rule prescribing minimum weight not un

lawful.

19. Minimum carload weight of 26,000 pounds applied to transportation of citrus fruit from California points to points east of Missouri river, held reasonable with the 40-foot refrigerator car in gen-attending the carriage of less than carload eral use. Consolidated Forwarding Co. v. Southern Pacific Co. et al., (1905) 10 I. C.

C. R. 590.

Hay, Ledyard, Ia., to Minneapolis.

20. Minimum weights applying on ship ments of hay, Ledyard, Iowa, to Minneapolis, were as follows:

Cars 30 feet and under.

Cars over 30 feet to and including 32 feet

Cars over 32 feet to and including 34 feet

Cars 36 feet and over.....

19,000

22. The necessary expense and trouble shipments, large or small, which, aside from the actual manual labor involved, are practically the same irrespective of the weight and bulk of the package, justifies the fixing of a minimum weight and charge for the transportation of such shipments.-Wrigley v. Cleveland, C. C. & St. L. Ry. Co. et al., (1905) 10 I. C. C. R. 412. Pounds. 23. Prior to Feb. 16, 1903, Southern 16,000 Classification provided that minimum 18,000 charge on single shipment of one class, classified first class or lower, should be for 50 pounds at the class or commodity rate to which it belonged. On that date the above provision was amended so that minimum charge was based upon 100 pounds. less than 100 pounds, and averred that Complainant shipped in lots of said amendment operated to subject his traffic to The undue prejudice. amount of clerical work was required, making of bills of lading, receipts, expense bills, the duplication and copying of same, rate' calculation, transfer to connecting lines, notice to consignees, receipt of ducting transportation, whether the shipfreight and division among carriers conment was large or small, the only difference being in the manual labor necessary in loading, transferring and unloading. A still higher minimum weight prevailed in Official Classification territory. Liability to loss of small or package freight is much greater than in case of large packages. Held, that the rule was not unreasonable or unjustly discriminative in its application to complainant's traffic.-Wrigley v. Cleveland C. C. & St. L. Ry. Co. et al., (1905) 10 I. C. C. R. 412.

Cars over 34 feet and less than 36 feet. 20.000 22,000 From Ledyard and other northern Iowa points to Chicago, minimum weight for cars 34 feet and under was 15,000 pounds; for cars over 34 feet, 20,000 pounds. These minima prevailed throughout a large part of Central Traffic Association territory. Held, that minimum weights applicable to shipments from Ledyard to Minneapolis were unreasonable; that minimum weights applicable to shipments from Ledyard to Chicago were reasonable, and should be applied to shipments destined to Minneapolis.-Wiemer & Rich v. Chicago & N. W. Ry. Co. et al., (1907) 12 I. C. C. R. 462. Peaches, Atlanta, Ga., to New York.

21. Carload rate on peaches from Atlanta, Ga., to New York of 81 cents per 100 pounds was based on minimum of 20,000 pounds for 36-foot cars and 22,500 pounds for 40-foot cars. No extra charge was made for loading in excess of these minimums. Complainant alleged that in order to load the minimum weight it was necessary to load the crates five tiers high in the cars; that where peaches were loaded above four tiers the fifth tier rotted, thereby damaging also the lower tiers. A minimum of 16,400 pounds for 36-foot cars and 18,750 pounds for 40-foot cars was demanded. The evidence showed that of the smaller size, 95 per cent were loaded above the minimum; of the larger size, 81 per cent. A decrease in the minimum would have increased the volume of non-paying freight which, because of the ice carried without charge, was already large. Held, that the established minimum carload weight was not unreasonable.Georgia Peach Growers' Assn. v. Atlantic C. L. Rd. Co. et al., (1904) 10 I. C. C. R. 255.

III. ESTIMATED WEIGHTS.
IN GENERAL, 24.

APPLES IN BARRELS, 25.
COTTON IN BALES, 26-28.

HORSES AND MULES, 29.

same

OIL IN TANK CARS AND IN BARRels, 30.
In general.

24. The Commission recognizes the right of carriers, in order to facilitate the movement of business, to fix an estimated weight upon certain standard packages, upon which the rate is based. As the estimated weight is taken into consideration in the making of the rate itself, the reasonableness of such weight may be passed

« ПредишнаНапред »