Графични страници
PDF файл
ePub

Lines, 2 I. C. C. 324, 2 I. C. R. 203. Reduction of rates without filing tariff showing such reduction illegal.-Re Passengers Tariffs and Rate Wars, 2 I. C. C. 513, 2 I. C. R. 340. Methods generally adopted in substantial compliance with law sufficient. Re Passenger Tariffs, 2 I. C. C. 649, 2 I. C. R. 445. Purpose of section.-Re Atlanta & W. P. R. Co., 3 I. C. C. 75, 2 I. C. R. 480. Foreign carriers engaged in transportation from the United States to an adjacent country must comply with section.-Re Investigation of Grand Trunk Railway, 3 I. C. C. 89, 2 I. C. R. 496. On shipments intended to be exported by sea, the tariff should show rate to place of export.-New York Produce Ex. v. New York C. H. R. R. Co., 3 I. C. C. 137, 2 I. C. R. 553. Passenger excursion rates must be published.-Pittsburg, etc., R. Co. v. Baltimore & O. R. Co., 3 I. C. C. 465, 2 I. C. R. 729; order not enforced because of error on another point, Int. Com. Com. v. B. & O. R. Co., 43 Fed. 37, 3 I. C. R. 192, 145 U. S. 263, 36 L. Ed. 699, 12 Sup. Ct. 844. Filing of schedules raises no presumption as to the lawfulness of rates set out therein.-San Bernardino Board of Trade v. A. T. & S. F. R. Co., 4 I. C. C. 104, 3 I. C. R. 138. Tariffs on imported goods should be posted at the port of entry and point of destination.-New York Board of Trade & Transportation v. The Penn. R. Co., 4 I. C. C. 447, 3 I. C. R. 417; order enforced, Int. Com. Com. v. Tex. Pac. R. Co., 52 Fed. 187, 57 Fed. 948, 6 C. C. A. 653, 20 U. S. App. 1, 4 I. C. R. 408; reversed on another ground, Tex. & Pac. R. Co. v. Int. Com. Com., 162 U. S. 197, 40 L. Ed. 940, 16 Sup. Ct. 666. Must post rates whether commodity exported or not. -New Orleans Cotton Ex. v. Louisville, N. O. & Tex. R. Co., 4 I. C. C. 694, 3 I. C. R. 523. A joint tariff must show on its face what roads concur therein.-Lehman-Higginson & Co. v. Tex. Pac. R. Co., 5 I. C. C. 44, 3 I. C. R. 706. Two rates on the same commodity should not be retained in the tariff when the lower rate, ostensibly is for a particular class, though actually open to all.-Duncan v. A. T. & S. F. R. Co., 6 I. C. C. 85, 4 I. C. R. 385. Section and its construction discussed. -Re Form and Contents of Rate Schedules, 6 I. C. C. 267, 4 I. C. R. 698. Mere designation in a circular of means of arriving at a rate not sufficient.-Colorado Fuel & Iron Co. v. So. Pac. Co., 6 I. C. C. 488, 518; order not enforced, So. Pac. Co. v. Colorado F. & I. Co., 101 Fed. 779, 42 C. C.

A. 12. To use a corporation owned by a carrier to transport freight at other than the published rates violates section. -Re Alleged Unlawful Rate and Practices, 7 I. C. C. 33. Posting notice that tariffs may be obtained from agent not sufficient. Rea v. M. & O. R. Co., 7 I. C. C. 43; Johnson v. Chicago, St. P., etc., R. Co., 9 I. C. C. 221, 237. Rules and regulations affecting aggregate of rates must be shown in tariff. Suffern, Hunt & Co. v. Indiana, etc., R. Co., 7 I. C. C. 255, 272, 278, 279; American Warehousemen's Asso. v. Ill. Cent. R. Co., 7 I. C. C. 566. Section construed with reference to joint rates.-New York, N. H. & H. v. Platt, 7 I. C. C. 323, 331; Consolidated Forwarding Co. v. So. Pac. Co., 9 I. C. C. 182; order enforced, Int. Com. Com. v. So. Pac. Co., 132 Fed. 829; reversed, So. Pac. Co. v. Int. Com. Com., 200 U. S. 336, 50 L. Ed. 585, 26 Sup. Ct. 330. Through export rates to foreign countries need not be shown; it is sufficient if the carrier to the port shows its proportion. Kemble v. Boston & A. R. Co., 8 I. C. C. 110, 119. But where the through rate is made by joint arrangement between the rail and water carrier it must be published. -Re Export and Domestic Rates on Grain, 8 I. C. C. 214, 276; Re Tariffs on Export and Import Traffic, 10 I. C. C. 55, 63. A local state rate part of a through rate must be published.-Re Export Rates from Points East and West of Mississippi River, 8 I. C. C. 185, 213. Rules and regulations relating to storage should be stated.-Penn. Millers State Asso. v. Philadelphia & R. R. Co., 8 I. C. C. 531, 560. When rate is per crate, the weight or dimensions should be prescribed. Re Alleged Unlawful Charges for Transportation of Vegetables, 8 I. C. C. 585. Rates referring to regulations of and charges for private cars must be published.—Carr v. N. Pac. R. Co., 9 I. C. C. 1, 15. Tariff should show division to tap line and privilege of milling in transit.-Central Yellow Pine Asso. v. Vicksburg, etc., R. Co., 10 I. C. C. 193. Charges for refrigeration must be shown.-Re Charges for Transportation and Refrigeration of Fruit, 10 I. C. C. 360, 11 I. C. C. 129. Section violated.-Re Alleged Unlawful Rates and Practices in Transportation of Coal, 10 I. C. C. 473, 484. Tariffs should be simple enough to be understood by persons of ordinary comprehension.-Pitts v. St. L. & S. F. Ry. Co., 10 I. C. C. 684. Tariffs cannot be given a retroactive effect.

[ocr errors]

-Re Through Routes and Through Rates, 12 I. C. C. 163. Privilege of stopping in transit to sort, etc., must be stated.Shiel & Co. v. Ill. Cent. R. Co., 12 I. C. C. 210. A toll charge not paid should not be stated in tariff.-Pacific Coast Jobbers & Mfgrs. Asso. v. So. Pac. Co., 12 I. C. C. 319. Mistake of agent in stating rate will not relieve from tariff rates.-Poor v. Chicago, B. & Q. Ry. Co., 12 I. C. C. 418, 469, citing and following Texas & Pac. R. Co. v. Mugg, 202 U. S. 242, 50 L. Ed. 1011, 26 Sup. Ct. 628; Gulf C. & S. F. R. Co. v. Hefley, 158 U. S. 98, 39 L. Ed. 910, 15 Sup. Ct. 802. See recommendation of Int. Com. Com. in annual report for 1908. Carrier making delivery at its cost should so state in tariff. -Schawager & Nettleton v. Great N. R. Co., 12 I. C. C. 521. Misleading, unreasonable or impossible conditions should not be stated in tariffs.-Re Released Rates, 13 I. C. C. 556. No allowance not specified in tariffs can be allowed.-La Salle, etc., R. Co. v. Chicago & N. W. R. Co., 13 I. C. C. 610. Tariff filed with Commission binding though not posted.Pueblo Transportation Asso. v. So. Pac. Co., 14 I. C. C. 82. Allowance made to shippers for cost of car-door boards must be stated.-Victor Fuel Co. v. A. T. & S. F. R. Co., 14 I. C. C. 119. So must reconsignment, storage and all other privileges. -Folmer & Co. v. Great N. Ry. Co., 15 I. C. C. 33, 36. Transportation by a railroad of employees of express companies engaged along the line of the railroad need not show in tariffs. -Re Contracts for Free Transportation, 16 I. C. C. 246, 249. Tariffs are to be construed by their language and not by traffic officials. Newton Gum. Co. v. Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co., 16 I. C. C. 341, 346. Section requires the filing of schedules, and when such schedules are filed, they show the only legal rates. -Kinnavey v. Terminal R. Asso. of St. Louis, 81 Fed. 802. A receiver of a railroad is not bound by a tariff filed before his appointment and which he has not ratified.-United States v. De Coursey, 82 Fed. 302. When a higher rate is charged than the rate given the shipper, because of misrouting, the shipper can recover the difference between the rate given him and the one he was compelled to pay.-PondDecker Lumber Co. v. Spencer, 86 Fed. 846, 849, 30 C. C. A. 430, reversing 81 Fed. 277. Section discussed.United States v. Wood, 142 Fed. 405, 408, 409. The purpose of publication is that the shipper may know not only what he,

[ocr errors]

but also what his competitor, must pay.-United States v. Chicago & A. R. Co., 148 Fed. 646, 648. Assumed, without a definite discussion, that icing charges may be stated separately in schedules.-Kundsen-Ferguson Fruit Co. v. Mich. Cent. R. Co., 148 Fed. 968, 971. Shipment of goods on through bill of lading from United States to a foreign country subject to the requirements of the section.-Armour Packing Co. v. United States, 153 Fed. 1, 10, 82 C. C. A. 135, 14 L. R. A. (N. S.) 400; affirmed, 209 U. S. 56, 52 L. Ed. 681, 28 Sup. Ct. 428. Cannot evade section when tariffs show a through route by transporting property over another route.-United States v. Vacuum Oil Co., 153 Fed. 598. A provision in a passenger ticket not shown in the schedule is unlawful and void. Baltimore & O. R. Co. v. Hamburger, 155 Fed. 849. When a schedule of rates includes a charge over private tracks, such charge must be collected.-Chicago & A. Ry. Co. v. United States, 156 Fed. 558, 84 C. C. A. 324, affirming 148 Fed. 646. So also with reference to an elevator charge and no defense that such payment had to be made to get the business.-Chicago, St. P., M. & O. Ry. Co. v. United States, 162 Fed. 835, affirming United States v. Chicago, St. P., M. & 0. Ry. Co., 151 Fed. 84. The legality of a terminal charge separately stated must be determined by itself and without reference to the total charge for the through movement.-Stickney v. Int. Com. Com., 164 Fed. 638; affirmed, Int. Com. Com. v. Stickney, 215 U. S. 98, 54 L. Ed. 112, 30 Sup. Ct. 66. A mistake in quoting a published rate does not justify a deviation therefrom.-Gulf, Col. & S. F. Ry. Co. v. Hefley, 158 U. S. 98, 39 L. Ed. 910, 15 Sup. Ct. 802; Texas & Pac. Ry. v. Mugg, 202 U. S. 242, 50 L. Ed. 1011, 26 Sup. Ct. 628; Texas & Pac. Ry. Co. v. Abilene Cotton Oil Co., 204 U. S. 426, 444, 51 L. Ed. 553, 560, 561, 27 Sup. Ct. 350. Free cartage furnished openly and notoriously for a quarter of a century need not be stated prior to Act June 29, 1906, in absence of a requirement of the Commission therefor.-Int. Com. Com. v. Detroit, G. H. & M. Ry. Co., 167 U. S. 633, 42 L. Ed. 306, 17 Sup. Ct. 986. May under this section make a distinct charge for the terminal road when separately stated in tariffs.--Int. Com. Com. v. Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co., 186 U. S. 320, 46 L. Ed. 1182, 22 Sup. Ct. 824. Nothing in section prevents the initial carrier from retaining the right to route freight.-So. Pac. Co

v. Int. Com. Com., 200 U. S. 536, 50 L. Ed. 585, 26 Sup. Ct. 330. Rates are established when filed with Interstate Commerce Commission though not posted.-Tex. & Pac. Ry. Co. v. Cisco Oil Mill, 204 U. S. 449, 51 L. Ed. 562, 27 Sup. Ct. 358.

Notes of Decisions Rendered Since 1909.

The purpose of this section is to secure to the public knowledge of the rates to be charged.-Schultz-Hansen Co. v. S. P. Co., 18 I. C. C. 234, 237. Damages awarded for failure "plainly" to state tariff application.-Larson Lumber Co. v. G. N. Ry. Co., 21 I. C. C. 474. Holding itself out as a common carrier may be assumed to be such.-Interstate Remedy Co. v. Am. Ex. Co., 16 I. C. C. 436; Crescent Coal & Mining Co. v. C. & E. I. R. R. Co., 24 I. C. C. 149, 156, 158. Regulations governing baggage required to be stated since amendment to Sec. 1 by Act June 18, 1910.-Regulations Restricting the Dimensions of Baggage, 26 I. C. C. 292. Posting not a condition precedent to making schedules operative. -Buren v. S. P. Co., 26 I. C. C. 332; Texas & Pacific Ry. Co. v. Cisco Oil Mill, 204 U. S. 449, 51 L. Ed. 562, 27 Sup. Ct. 358; Kansas City So. Ry. Co. v. Albers Com. Co., 223 U. S. 573, 594, 56 L. Ed. 556, 32 Sup. Ct. 316; United States v. Miller, 223 U. S. 599, 56 L. Ed. 568, 32 Sup. Ct. 323. Commission's power to modify provisions as to posting stated. Franke Grain Co. v. I. C. R. Co., 27 I. C. C. 625, 629, modifying Kiel Woodenware Co. v. C. M. & St. P. Ry. Co., 18 I. C. C. 242. "Integrity of through rate" defined in its application to section.-Fabrication-in-transit Charges, 29 I. C. C. 70, 87. A shipper has a continued right in rates filed.-Am. Sugar Refining Co. v. D. L. & W. R. Co., 207 Fed. 733, 125 C. C. A. 251, reversing same-styled case, 200 Fed. 652. Failure to post tariffs no ground for recovery of damages.-Ill. C. R. R. Co. v. Henderson Elevator Co., 226 U. S. 441, 57 L. Ed. 290, 33 Sup. Ct. 176. Stock Yards Transit Co. must file tariff.-U. S. v. Union Stock Yards & Transit Co., 226 U. S. 286, 57 L. Ed. 226, 33 Sup. Ct. 83, modifying same-styled case, 192 Fed. 330, Op. Com. Ct. No. 15 p. 189. Special arrangement for transporting men employed by Construction Co. legal.-Santa Fe P. & P. R. Co. v. Grant Bros. Construction Co., 228 U. S. 177, 57 L. Ed.

« ПредишнаНапред »