ing upon shippers because not stated upon | $2.20 under a commodity rate on furnithe schedules of rates in force.-Suffern, ture (new), all kinds" carried in carloads Hunt & Co. v. Indiana D. & W. Ry. Co., (1897) 7 I. C. C. R. 255. 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. 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 provided 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 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. C. 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 higher minimum loading requirement than 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 shippers 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 establish a differential between carload and less than carload rates based upon an unusual carload minimum with which but few shippers 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 competing commodities as ground for maintenance of differential. 17. Lower carload minimum was estab lished on corn meal than on corn. Held, that such lower minimum was a substantial concession in favor of corn meal which justified the maintenance of a reasonable 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. 14. A properly established rule or regulation forbidding shippers to load grain cars beyond a specified weight above the marked car capacity, and providing for reasonable increase in rate on the excess 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, reduced from 46 to 36 cents per 100 be if the differential were somewhat re turbed.-Railroad Commission of Kansas v. Atchison, T. & S. F. Ry. Co. et al., (1899) 8 I. Č. C. R. 304. Citrus fruit, California points to points | II. MINIMUM WEIGHTS FOR LESS east of Missouri river. THAN CARLOAD LOTS. lawful. 22. The necessary expense and trouble 19. Minimum carload weight of 26,000 pounds applied to transportation of citrus Rule prescribing minimum weight not unfruit 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 shipments of hay, Ledyard, Iowa, to Minneapolis, were as follows: Cars 30 feet and under. Cars over 30 feet to and including 32 feet Pounds. Cars over 32 feet to and including 34 Cars 36 feet and over.... 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. 23. Prior to Feb. 16, 1903, Southern Classification provided that minimum 18,000 charge on single shipment of one class, classified first class or lower, should be 19,000 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 less than 100 pounds, and averred that pounds. Complainant shipped in lots of said amendment operated to subject his traffic to undue prejudice. amount of clerical work was required, bills, the duplication and copying of same, making of bills of lading, receipts, expense 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 differ ence 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. 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 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. were The same upon by the Commission.-White & Co. v. Baltimore & O. S. Rd. Co., (1907) 12 I. C. C. R. 306. Apples in barrels. weights which were 2,000 pounds for the first animal, 1,500 pounds for the second and 1,000 pounds for each additional animal. Applying the rate to the estimated weight of one animal, the resulting charge load rate between the same points was was $36; on four animals, $99. The car 25. Carriers in Official Classification territory fixed an estimated weight for ap ples of 160 pounds per barrel. Held, that because one shipper dealt in apples weigh-only $100 per car; on horned animals, $75 ing less to the barrel than apples of some per car. Held, that while the resulting other variety, and thus paid a few cents charge was not unreasonable when applied to one animal, it became unreasonable more per 100 pounds than did another when applied to four animals; that a just shipper who handled a different and heavier variety of apples, it did not fol- tariff would result if the commodity rate low that the rule as to estimated weights of $1.80 per 100 pounds were reduced to was unreasonable.-White & Co. v. Balti-regular first-class rate of 90 cents and the more & O. S. Rd. Co., (1907) 12 I. C. C. R. creased from 2,000 to 4,000 pounds, the estimated weight of the first animal inestimated weight of the second and subsequent animals to remain at 1,500 and 1,000 pounds.-Barrow v. Yazoo & M. V. Rd. Co. et al., (1904) 10 I. C. C. R. 333. Oil in tank cars and in barrels. 306. Cotton in bales. 26. A plan of billing cotton at a proper estimated weight per bale should not be deemed unlawful when actual weights cannot be ascertained without great inconvenience to the shipper or carrier, and when charges are promptly adjusted by the carrier upon the basis of actual weights furnished by the consignee.Phelps & Co. v. Texas & P. Ry. Co., (1893) 6 I. C. C. R. 36, 49, 4 I. C. R. 363. 30. The refined average weight of petroleum oil was not less than 6.5 pounds per gallon. When shipped in tank cars from eastern points to Pacific coast terri6.3 pounds per gallon. When shipped in tory defendants estimated the weight at barrels defendants estimated the total weight of oil and barrel at 400 pounds, which was but little less than the actual 27. While a plan of billing cotton at a proper estimated weight per bale will not be deemed unlawful when actual weights cannot be ascertained without great in weight. Under this method of estimating convenience to the shipper or carrier, and send refined oil at a less total cost for the weights the shipper in tank cars could when charges are promptly adjusted by the carrier upon the basis of actual same weight of freight than the shipper in weights furnished by the consignee, such barrels between the same points. Held, plan will be regarded as unlawful if the that so far as this method enabled the tank carrier delays for considerable periods of shipper to secure the carriage of more time in making such adjustments.-Jerome pounds of freight for the same money than Hill Cotton Co. v. Missouri, K. & T. Ry.ter to undue and unlawful prejudice.—Rice the shipper in barrels, it subjected the latCo., (1896) 6 I. C. C. R. 601, 616. 28. The rate on cotton from Eufaula, Ind. Terr., and other stations on defend ant's line south of Wagoner, to St. Louis was based on an estimated weight of 535 pounds per bale. The rate from Wagoner v. Cincinnati, W. & B. Rd. Co. et al., (1892) 5 I. C. C. R. 193, 3 I. C. R. 841. IV. BILLING AT NET WEIGHT. When practice unlawful. and stations further north to St. Louis was 31. Although the fact that most shipbased on an estimated weight of 500 pounds per bale. Held, that there was no pers of a given article in part of a described territory are permitted to secure justification in estimating cotton from reduced rates by billing at net weight, Eufaula and stations south thereof at a we many other shippers of the same argreater number of pounds per bale than cotton from Wagoner and stations further tiele in another portion of that territory north.-Jerome Hill Cotton Co. v. Mis-pay higher rates through billing at full souri, K. & T. Ry. Co., (1896) 6 I. C. C. R. 601. Horses and mules. 29. Defendant's less than carload rate on horses and mules from Bayou Sara, La., to St. Louis, Mo., was double first class, or $1.80 per 100 pounds, upon estimated weight of the package and its contents, is ample warrant for requiring the carriers to remove the unjust discrimination as between shippers by discontinuing the prac tice of shipping at net weights in any part of the territory, yet on the other hand, un less the net-weight practice is prevalent throughout substantially the whole terri tory affected, and either authorized by car- | Carrier may deny use of its wharf to rival riers generally in that territory or so well line. known from constant and general applica- 1. A railroad company maintaining a tion as to receive implied sanction, it will wharf which extends into navigable not of itself constitute sufficient ground waters, for the purpose of transferring for an order requiring a reduction in rates passengers and freight to boats owned by when all the carriers apply their estab-it, is not guilty of violating section 3 of lished charges on the basis of gross weights. Proctor & G. Co. v. Cincinnati, H. & D. Ry. Co. et al., (1903) 9 I. C. C. R. 440, 485. V. WEIGHT FURNISHED BY SHIP- Right of carrier to verify. 32. Where weights are furnished by the shipper at point of shipment, the carrier has the right to verify them by reweighing, and if found to be incorrect, to charge and collect freight on the true weight. The question is one of fact to be determined in a manner just to both parties and as to which the ex parte action of either cannot conclude the other.-Potter Mfg. Co. v. Chicago & G. T. Ry. Co. et al., (1892) 5 I. C. C. R. 514, 527, 4 I. C. R. 223. VI. ERROR IN WEIGHING. Unjust charges resulting from. 33. The Commission has authority to award reparation for unjust charges on coal due to error in weighing.-Leonard v. Missouri, K. & T. Ry. Co. et al., (1907) 12 I. C. C. R. 538. the Act by refusing to permit the boats of a rival company to land at the wharf.Ilwaco Ry. & Nav. Co. v. Oregon Short Line & U. N. Ry. Co., (1893) 57 Fed. Rep. 673, 6 C. C. A. 495, reversing 51 Fed. Rep. 611. WESTERN CLASSIFICATION. Passenger carload rates, see See Classification." WHALE BONE. Denver, Colo., from Pacific coast terminals. 1. Higher rate than that from same points to Missouri river, held unlawful. -Kindel et al. v. Atchison, T. & S. F. Ry. Co. et al., (1903) 9 I. C. C. R. 606. WHALE OIL FOOTS. "Reduced rate transportation, 26. Train-load rates, see "Rates," 1007-1010. WINDOW SHADES. Classification of window shades, вее "Classification," 69, 70. WINDOWS. See "Doors and windows.'' WINES. Dallas, Tex., from New Orleans, La. Denver, Colo., from Pacific coast terminals. 1. Higher rate than that from same 1. Rate on wines (in wood) of 73 cents points to Missouri river, held unlawful. per 100 pounds, held not unlawful as comKindel et al. v. Atchison, T. & S. F. Ry.pared with rate of 50 cents from same Co. et al., (1903) 9 I. C. C. R. 606. WHARVES. Toll for wharfage at San Francisco, Cal., see Schedules or tariffs,'' 56. point through Dallas to Kansas City, Mo. -Dallas Freight Bureau v. Texas & P. Ry. Co. et al., (1898) 8 I. C. C. R. 33. WINTER RATES. See Rates,'' 763, 764. |