Графични страници
PDF файл
ePub

to

upon by the Commission.- White & Co. v. weights which were 2,000 pounds for the Baltimore & 0. S. Rd. Co., (1907) 12 I. C. first animal, 1,500 pounds for the second C. R. 306.

and 1,000 pounds for each additional ani. Apples in barrels.

mal. Applying the rate to the estimated 25. Carriers in Official Classification weight of one animal, the resulting charge territory fixed an estimated weight for ap: load rate between the same points was

was $36; on four animals, $99. The carples 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 more per 100 pounds than did another when applied to four animals; that a just

one animal, it became unreasonable shipper who handled 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 & 0. S. Rd. Co., (1907) 12 I. C. C. R. estimated weight of the first animal in. 306.

creased from 2,000 to 4,000 pounds, the

estimated weight of the second and subCotton in bales.

sequent animals to remain at 1,500 and 26. A plan of billing cotton at a proper 1,000 pounds.-Barrow v. Yazoo & M. V. estimated weight per bale should not be Rd. Co. et al., (1904) 10 I. C. C. R. 333. deemed unlawful when actual weights can-Oil in tank cars and in barrels. not be ascertained without great inconvenience to the shipper or carrier, and

30. The average weight of refined when charges are promptly adjusted by petroleum oil was not less than 6.5 pounds the carrier upon the basis of actual per gallon. When shipped in tank cars weights furnished by the consignee.

from eastern points to Pacific coast terri. Phelps & Co. v. Texas & P. Ry, Co., (1893) 6.3 pounds per gallon. When shipped in

tory defendants estimated the weight at 6 I. C. C. R. 36, 49, 4 I. C. R. 363.

barrels defendants estimated the total 27. While a plan of billing cotton at a weight of oil and barrel at 400 pounds, proper estimated weight per bale will not which was but little less than the actual be deemed unlawful when actual weights weight. Under this method of estimating cannot be ascertained without great inconvenience 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. I ter to undue and unlawful prejudice.—Rice

the shipper in barrels, it subjected the lat. Co., (1896) 6 I. C. C. R. 601, 616.

28. The rate on cotton from Eufaula, Y; Cincinnati, W. & B. Rd. Co. et al., Ind. Terr., and other stations on defend! |(1892) 5 I. C. C. R. 193, 3 I. C. R. 841. ant's line south of Wagoner, to St. Louis was based on an estimated weight of 535

IV. BILLING AT NET WEIGHT. pounds per bale. The rate from Wagoner When practice unlawful. and stations further north to St. Louis was based on an estimated weight of 500

31. Although the fact that most shippounds per bale. Held, that there was no pers of a given article in part of a de. justification in estimating cotton from

scribed territory are permitted to secure Eufaula and stations south thereof at a

reduced rates by billing at net weight, greater number of pounds per bale than tiele in another portion of that territory

wune many other shippers of the same arcotton from Wagoner and stations further north.— Jerome Hill Cotton Co. v. Mis pay higher rates through billing at fuil souri, K. & T. Ry. Co., (1896) 6 I. c. c. R. weight of the package and its contents, is 601.

ample warrant for requiring the carriers to

remove the unjust discrimination as beHorses and mules.

tween shippers by discontinuing the prac. 29. Deiendant's less than carload rate tice of shipping at net weights in any part on horses and mules from Bayou Sara, La., of the territory, yet on the other hand, un. to St. Louis, Mo., was double first class, less the net-weight practice is prevalent or $1.80 per 100 pounds, upon estimated 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 the Act by refusing to permit the boats of weights.—Proctor & G. Co. v. Cincinnati, a rival company to land at the wharf.H. & D. Ry. Co. et al., (1903) 9 I. C. C. R. Ilwaco Ry. & Nav. Co. v. Oregon Short 440, 485.

Line & U. N. Ry. Co., (1893) 57 Fed. Rep.

673, 6 C. C. A. 495, reversing 51 Fed. Rep. V. WEIGHT FURNISHED BY SHIP- 611. PER AT POINT OF ORIGIN.

WHEAT. Right of carrier to verify. 32.

Where weights are furnished by See “Grain."'. the shipper at point of shipment, the carrier has the right to verify them by re- WHITE PASSENGERS. weighing, and if found to be incorrect, to charge and collect freight on the true Separate accommodations for white and weight. The question is one of fact to be colored passengers, see Passengers," determined in a manner just to both par- 3-11. ties and as to which the ex parte action of either cannot conclude the other.- Potter

WHOLESALE RATES. Mfg. Co. v. Chicago & G. T. Rx. Co. et al., (1892) 5 I. C. C. R. 514, 527, 4 1. C. R. 223. See “Rates," 23, 419.

Arbitrary per car, applied when shipment VI. ERROR IN WEIGHING.

is in less than ten carloads,

“Rates," 1010. Unjust charges resulting from.

Large shippers, discount from rate in 33. The Commission has authority to favor of, see Rates,' award reparation for unjust charges on Large shippers, lower rates in favor of, see coal due to error in weighing.-Leonard v.

“Rates," 717-720. Missouri, K. & T. Ry. Co. et al., (1907) 12 Manufacturing industries, lower rates in I, C. C. R. 538.

favor of, see “Rates,' 722.

Party rates, see “ Tickets,' 38-46. WESTERN CLASSIFICATION. Passenger carload rates, see “Reduced

rate transportation," 26. See "Classification.''

Train-load rates, see “Rates," 1007-1010.

WINDOW SHADES.
WHALE BONE.

Classification of window shades,
Denver, Colo., from Pacific coast terminals. “Classification,” 69, 70.

1. Higher rate than that from same points to Missouri river, held unlawful.

WINDOWS.
-Kindel et al. v. Atchison, T. & S. F. Ry.
Co. et al., (1903) 9 I. C. C. R. 606.

See “Doors and windows."

see

" 721.

see

WHALE OIL FOOTS.

WINES. Denver, Colo., from Pacific coast terminals. Dallas, Tex., from New Orleans, La. 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.

point through Dallas to Kansas City, Mo.
-Dallas Freight Bureau v. Texas & P. Ry.

Co. et al., (1898) 8 I. C. C. R. 33.
WHARVES.

WINTER RATES.
Toll for wharfage at San Francisco, Cal.,
see "Schedules or tariffs,” 56.

See “Rates," 763, 764.

WIRE.

WRAPPING PAPER. Dallas, Tex., from New Orleans, La. Baltimore, Md., to points in South.

1. Rate of 44 cents per 100 pounds, held 1. Refusal to apply carload rates to not unlawful as compared with rate of 25 mixed carloads of paper bags and wrapcents from same point through Dallas to ping paper, held not unlawful.-Paper Kansas City, Mo.-Dallas Freight Bureau Mills Co. v. Pennsylvania Rd. Co. et al., v. Texas & P. Ry. Co. et al., (1898) 8 I. C. (1907) 12 I. C. C. R. 438. C. R. 33. WITNESS.

X-RAY APPARATUS. Competency of witness, see “Procedure,''

Classification of, see “Classification,47. 34. Immunity under Act. Feb. 11, 1893, see

YARDAGE. Evidence,” 18-21.

Imposition of yardage charge for use of WOOD ALCOHOL.

stock yards, see “Stock yards,” 4.

Allowance for, made by carrier to shipper. See "Alcohol."

1. Defendant, in making delivery of

live stock to S. & S. at New York City, WOODENWARE.

unloaded the stock at the yards of S. & S.

at that point. On stock thus delivered deMenasha, Wis., to Pacific coast terminals. fendant allowed S. & S. 342 cents per 100

1; Carload rate of $1.35 per 100 pounds, pounds for yardage, the same being deheld unlawful as compared with rate of ducted from the regular published orate. $1.25 from the terminals to Missouri river No reference thereto was contained in deand points east.—Menasha Wooden Ware fendant's tariff. Held, that delivery to Co. v. Atchison, Topeka & S. F. Rd. Co. S. & S. was complete when the stock was et al., (1906) 11 I. C. C. R. 666.

unloaded at their yards; that the yardage allowance was therefore equivalent to a

reduction or rebate from the regular tariff WOOL.

rate.-Shamberg v. Delaware, L. & W. Rd.

Co. et al., (1891) 4 I. C. C. R. 630, 3 I. C. Denver, Colo., from Pacific coast terminals. R. 502.

1. Higher rate than that from same points to Missouri river, held unlawful.Kindel et al. v. Atchison, T. & S. F. Ry.

YARDS. Co. et al., (1903) 9 I. C. C. R. 606.

See “Stock yards." Eureka Springs, Ark., St. Louis, Mo. 2. Rate on wool, in sacks, any quantity, Right of carriers to establish.

1. was 87 cents per 100 pounds. Held, that

The act to regulate commerce deals any late in excess of that stated would be with common carriers subject to its provi. unreasonable.-Cary et al. Eureka

sions as it finds them, and leaves to them Springs Ry. Co. et al., (1897) 7 I. C. C. R. | full discretion as to the yards or depots 286.

they may choose to establish.-Kentucky

& I. Bridge Co. v. Louisville & N. Rd. Co., Ft. Wayne, Ind., from Philadelphia, Pa. (1889) 37 Fed. Rep. 567, 621.

3. Rate on "wool in the grease” of 62 cents per 100 pounds, held not unreason. able as compared with rate between same

YELLOWSTONE PARK. points in opposite direction of 34 cents.Weil v. Pennsylvania Co. et al., (1906) 11 Stage.coach accommodations for touring I. C. C. R. 627.

park, see Passengers,” 2.

“ WORLD'S FAIR EXPOSI- YELLOWSTONE PARK TION.”

ASSOCIATION. Section 4, suspension of operation of, see Not within provisions

of Act, Long and short haul clause," 150, 151.

"Hotels.''

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors][merged small]

(REFERENCES ARE TO PAGES.)

A

Associated Wholesale Grocers v. Missouri

Pac. Ry. Co. (1 I. C. C. R. 156, 1 I. C. Aberdeen Group Commercial Assn. v. Mo. R. 393), 177, 503, 616.

bile & O. Rd. Co. (10 I. C. C. R. 289), Atchison, T. & S. F. Ry. Co. v. Denver &
121, 195, 204, 281, 388, 424.

N. O. Rd. Co. (110 U. S. 667, 4 Sup. Ct.
Albany Produce Co. v. Chicago, B. & Q. R. 185, 28 L. ed. 291), 109, 553, 607.
Ry. Co. (12 I. C. C. R. 434), 96.

Atchison, T. & S. F. Rd. Co. v. Goetz & B.
Alford v. Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry. Co. (3 Mfg. Co. (51 Ill. App. 151), 191.

I. C. C. R. 519, 2 I. C. R. 771), 119, 620. Atchison, T. & S. F. Ry. Co. v. Holmes (18 Allen et al. v. Louisville, N. A. & C. Rd. Okl. 92, 90 Pac. 22), 115, 117, 580.

Co. (1 I. C. C. R. 199, 1 I. C. R. 621), Atlanta, K. & N. Ry. Co. v. Horne (106 294, 318, 508.

Tenn. 73, 59 S. W. 134), 39, 116, 148, Allen & Lewis v. Oregon Rd. & Nav. Co. 581, 591.

et al. (98 Fed. Rep. 16), 39, 102, 103, Augusta S. Rd. Co. v. Wrightsville Rd. Co. 229, 357, 378, 412, 433, 435, 463, 467. (74 Fed. Rep. 522), 65, 110. Allen & Lewis v. Oregon Rd. & Nav. Co. et al. (106 Fed. Rep. 265), 39, 229, 357,

B 379, 433, 435, 467. Amarillo Gas Co. v. Atchison, T. & S. F. Baltimore & 0. R. Co. v. Hamburger et al.

Ry. Co. et al. (12 I. C. C. Ř. 209), 307, (155 Fed. Rep. 849), 570, 612. 337.

Banner v. Wabash R. Co. (131 Iowa 405, American Fruit Union v. Cincinnati, N. 108 N. W. 759), 538.

0. & T. P. Ry. Co. (12 I. C. C. R. 411), Barden & Swarthout v. Lehigh Valley R. 119, 365, 535, 596, 619.

Co. (12 I. C. C. R. 193), 546, 599, 600. American Grass Twine Co. v. Chicago, St. Barrow v. Yazoo & M. V. Rd. Co. et al.

P. M. & O. Ry, Co. et al. (12 I. C. C. R. (10 I. C. C. R. 333), 219, 241, 368, 642. 141), 302, 376, 535, 540, 556.

Bates v. Pennsylvania Rd. Co. (3 Í. C. C. American Nat. Live Stock Assn. v. Texas R. 435, 2 I. Č. R. 715), 440

& P. Ry. Co. et al. (12 I. C. C. R. 32), Bates v. Pennsylvania Rd. Co. et al. (4 I. 243, 469, 610.

C. C. R. 281, 3 I. C. R. 296, vacating American Warehousemen's Assn. V. Illi. order in same case, 3 I. C. C. R. 435, 2.

nois Cent. Rd. Co. et al. (7 I. C. C. R. I. C. R. 715), 121, 206, 440. 556), 146, 155, 161, 315, 507, 518, 522, Beaver & Co. v. Pittsburgh, C. & St. L. 568, 569, 595.

Ry. Co. et al. (4 I. C. C. Ř. 733, 3 I. C. Andrews Soap Co. v. Pittsburgh, C. & St. R. 564), 93.

L. Ry. Co. et al. (4 I. C. C. R. 41, 3 I. Behlmer v. Louisville & N. Rd. Co. et al.
C. R. 77), 88, 93.

(71 Fed. Rep. 835; reversed, 83 Fed. Anthony Salt Co. v. Missouri Pacific Ry. Rep. 898, 28 C. C. A. 229; decree of

Co. et al. (5 I. C. C. R. 299, 4 I. C. R. Circuit Court of Appeals reversed, Louis33), 358, 361, 384, 415, 428, 556.

ville & N. R. Co. v. Behlmer, 175 U. S. Armour Packing Co. v. United States (153 648, 20 Sup. Ct. R. 209, 44 L. Ed. -,

Fed. Rep. 1, 82 C. C. A. 135), 38, 118, refusing to enforce order of Commission, 131, 135, 138, 514, 565, 566, 579, 582, 587, 6 I. C. C. R. 257, 4 I. C. R. 520), 217, 602.

283, 284, 311, 521. Artz v. Seaboard Air Line Ry. Co. (11 I. Behlmer v. Louisville & N. Rd. Co. et al. C. C. R. 458), 320, 503, 504.

(83 Fed. Rep. 898, 28 C. C. A. 229, re645

[REFERENCES ARE TO PAGES.) versing 71 Fed. Rep. 835; decree of Cir. cago, B. & Q. Ry. Co. et al. (12 I. C. C. cuit Court of Appeals reversed, Louis. R. 173), 206, 525. ville & N. R. Co. v. Behlmer, 175 U. S. Board of Trade of Lynchburg et al. v. Old 648, 20 Sup. Ct. R. 209, 44 L. Ed.

Dominion S. S. C'o. et al. (6 l. C. C. R. refusing to enforce order of Commission, 632), 83, 291, 543. 6 I. C. c. R. 257, 4 I. C. R. 520), 274, Board of Trade of Troy, Ala. v, Alabama 284, 289, 311.

Midland Ry. Co. et al. (6 I. C. C. R. 1, Behlmer v. Memphis & C. Rd. Co. et al. 4 1. C. R. 319; petition to enforce order

(6 I. C. C. R. 257, 4 I. C. R. 520; peti- of Commission denied, I. C. C. v. Alation to enforce order of Commission de- bama M. Ry. Co., 69 Fed. Rep. 227, 74 nied, Behlmer v. Louisville & N. Rd. Co., Fed. Rep. 715, 168 U. S. 144, 18 Sup. 71 Fed. Rep. 835; decree of Circuit Court Ct. R. 45, 42 L. Ed. 414), 85, 123, 284, reversed, 83 Fed. Rep. 898; decree of

285, 298, 317, 324, 353, 369, 372, 423, 433, Circuit Court of Appeals reversed, Louis- 436, 475, 476, 480, 481, 500, 509, 521. ville & N. Rd. Co. v. Behlmer, 175 U. S. Boards-of-Trade Union v. Chicago, M. & 648, 20 Sup. Ct. R. 209, 44 L. Ed. —), St. P. Ry. Co. (1 1. ('. C. R. 215, 1 I. C. 217, 274, 283, 284, 298.

R. 608), 205, 431. Behrend v. Washington Southern Ry. Co. Boston & A. Rd. ('0. v. Boston & L. Rd.

et al. (9 I. C. C. R. 637), 320, 505, 621. Co. et al. (1 I. (. C. R. 158, 1 I. C. R. Bell Co. v. Baltimore & O. S. Rd. Co. et al. 500), 103, 144, 230, 296, 315, 336, 394. (9 I. C. C. R. 632), 491.

Boston Chamber of Commerce

v. Lake

Shore & M. S. Ry. Co. et al. (1 1. C. C. Bigbee & Warrior Rivers Packet Co. v. Mobile & 0. Rd. Co. (60 Fed. Rep. 545),

R. 436, 1 I. C. R. 754), 81, 406, 426, 463,

482, 483. 166, 400.

Boston Fruit & Produce Exchange v. New Birmingham Packing Co. v. Texas & P. Ry. York & N. E. Rd. Co. et al. (4 I. C. C.

Co. et al. (12 I. C. C. R. 29), 241, 469, R. 664, 3 I. C. R. 493), 39, 65, 66, 119. 610.

314, 323, 361, 365, 391, 506, 610, 629, 630. Birmingham Packing Co. v. Texas & P. Boston Fruit & P. Exchange v. New York

Ry. Co. et al. (12 I. C. C. R. 500), 470. & N. E. Rd. Co. et al. (5 I. C. C. R. 1,
Bishop v. Duval, Receiver, etc. (3 I. C. C. 3 I. C. R. 604), 367.
R. 128, 2 I. C. R. 514), 335.

Boyer v. Chesapeake, O. & S. W. Ry. Co.
Blackman v. Southern Ry. Co. (10 I. C. (7 I. C. C. R. 55), 337.
C. R. 352), 533, 595.

Brabham et al. v. Atlantic Coast Line Rd. Blackwell Milling & E. Co. v. Missouri, K. Co. (11 I. C. C. R. 464), 320, 358, 504.

& T. Ry. Co. (12 I. C. C. R. 23), 166, Brady et al. v. Pennsylvania Rd. Co. et al. 335, 450, 482, 535.

(2 I. C. C. R. 131, 2 I. C. R. 78), 309, Board of Trade of Chattanooga v. East 376, 509.

Tennessee, V. & G. Ry. Co. et al. (5 I. Brewer v. Central of Georgia Ry. Co. et al. C. C. R. 546, 4 I. C. R. 213; order of (84 Fed. Rep. 258, refusing to enforce Commission enforced, 85 Fed. Rep. 107, order of Commission, 7 1. C. C. R. 224), 99 Fed. Rep. 52; decree of Circuit Court 38, 126, 228, 279, 290, 423. and Circuit Court of Appeals reversed, Brewer & Hanleiter v. Louisville & N. Rd. East Tennessee, V. & G. Ry. Co. v. I. C. Co. et al. (7 I. C. C. R. 224; petition to C., 181 U. S. 1, 21 Sup. Ct. R. 516), 81, enforce order of Commission denied. 277, 286, 288, 290, 422.

Brewer et al. v. Central of Georgia Ry. Board of Trade of Chicago v. Chicago & Co. et al. 84 Fed. Rep. 258), 273, 290,

A. Rd. Co. et al. (4 I. C. C. R. 158, 3 I. 298, 416, 423, 511.
C. R. 233), 71, 242, 312, 437, 412.

Brockway v. Ulster & D. Rd. Co. et al. (8 Board of Trade of Dawson Ga. v. Central I. C. C. R. 21), 54, 131, 303, 486.

of Ga. Ry. Co. et al. (8 I. C. C. R. 142), Brown v. Walker (70 Fed. Rep. 46), 188. 417, 479.

Brown v. Walker (161 U. S. 591, 16 Sur. Board of Trade of Hampton v. Nashville, Ct. R. 644, 40 L. Ed. 819, affirming til

C. & St. L. Ry. Co. et al. (8 I. C. C. R. Fed. Rep. 46), 189. 503; petition to enforce order of Com Brownell v. Columbus & C. M. Rd. Co. (5 mission denied, I. C. C. v. Nashville, C. I. C. C. R. 638, 4 I. C. R. 285), 182, 444, & St. L. Ry. Co., 120 Fed. Rep. 934), 492. 287, 351, 358, 369, 379, 415, 423, 478, 486, Buchanan v. Northern Pacific Rd. Co. (5 481.

I. C. C. R. 7, 3 I. C. R. 655), 214, 358, Board of Trade Kans. City, Mo. v. Chi.! 370, 375, 398, 395.

« ПредишнаНапред »