Графични страници
PDF файл
ePub

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 per car. Held, that while the resulting ing less to the barrel than apples of some 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 shipper who handled when applied to four animals; that a just 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

a

more & O. S. Rd. Co., (1907) 12 I. C. C. R.

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.

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 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, such plan will be regarded as unlawful if the carrier delays for considerable periods of time in making such adjustments.-Jerome Hill Cotton Co. v. Missouri, K. & T. Ry. Co., (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

and stations further north to St. Louis was

based on an estimated weight of 500 pounds per bale. Held, that there was no justification in estimating cotton from

Eufaula and stations south thereof at a

estimated weight of the first animal increased from 2,000 to 4,000 pounds, the estimated 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.

30. The average weight of refined 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

weight. Under this method of estimating send refined oil at a less total cost for the weights the shipper in tank cars could same weight of freight than the shipper in barrels between the same points. Held, that so far as this method enabled the tank shipper to secure the carriage of more pounds of freight for the same money than ter to undue and unlawful prejudice.-Rice the shipper in barrels, it subjected the latV. 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.

31. Although the fact that most shippers of a given article in part of a de reduced rates by billing at net weight, scribed territory are permitted to secure greater number of pounds per bale than ticle in another portion of that territory we 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 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-
PER AT POINT OF ORIGIN.
Right of carrier to verify.
32.
Where weights are furnished by
the shipper at point of shipment, the car-
rier has the right to verify them by re-
weighing, 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 par-
ties 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.

[blocks in formation]

WHOLESALE RATES.

See "Rates,'' 23, 419.

Arbitrary per car, applied when shipment is in less than ten carloads, see "Rates," 1010.

Large shippers, discount from rate in favor of, see "Rates," 721.

Large shippers, lower rates in favor of, see
"Rates," 717-720.

Manufacturing industries, lower rates in
favor of, see "Rates," 722.
Party rates, see "Tickets,' 38-46.

WESTERN CLASSIFICATION. Passenger carload rates, see "Reduced

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.

rate transportation," 26. Train-load rates, see "Rates," 1007-1010.

WINDOW SHADES.

Classification of window shades, see "Classification," 69, 70.

WINDOWS.

See "Doors and windows."'

WINES.

Dallas, Tex., from New Orleans, La.

1.

WHALE OIL FOOTS. Denver, Colo., from Pacific coast terminals. 1. Higher rate than that from same 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.

[blocks in formation]
[blocks in formation]

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. Eureka Springs, Ark., St. Louis, Mo.

2. Rate on wool, in sacks, any quantity, was 87 cents per 100 pounds. Held, that any late in excess of that stated would be unreasonable.-Cary et al. V. Eureka Springs Ry. Co. et al., (1897) 7 I. C. C. R.

286.

[blocks in formation]

WRAPPING PAPER.

Baltimore, Md., to points in South.

1. Refusal to apply carload rates to mixed carloads of paper bags and wrapping paper, held not unlawful.-Paper Mills Co. v. Pennsylvania Rd. Co. et al., (1907) 12 I. C. C. R. 438.

X-RAY APPARATUS.

Classification of, see "Classification," 47.

YARDAGE.

Imposition of yardage charge for use of stock yards, see "Stock yards," 4. Allowance for, made by carrier to shipper.

1. Defendant, in making delivery of live stock to S. & S. at New York City, unloaded the stock at the yards of S. & S. at that point. On stock thus delivered defendant allowed S. & S. 3%1⁄2 cents per 100 ducted from the regular published rate. pounds for yardage, the same being deNo reference thereto was contained in defendant's tariff. Held, that delivery to S. & S. was complete when the stock was unloaded at their yards; that the yardage allowance was therefore equivalent to a reduction or rebate from the regular tariff rate. Shamberg v. Delaware, L. & W. Rd. Co. et al., (1891) 4 I. C. C. R. 630, 3 I. C. R. 502.

[blocks in formation]

TABLE OF CASES.

[REFERENCES ARE TO PAGES.]

Aberdeen Group Commercial Assn. v. Mo-
bile & O. Rd. Co. (10 I. C. C. R. 289),
121, 195, 204, 281, 388, 424.
Albany Produce Co. v. Chicago, B. & Q.
Ry. Co. (12 I. C. C. R. 434), 96.
Alford v. Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry. Co. (3
I. C. C. R. 519, 2 I. C. R. 771), 119, 620.
Allen et al. v. Louisville, N. A. & C. Rd.
Co. (1 I. C. C. R. 199, 1 I. C. R. 621),
294, 318, 508.

Allen & Lewis v. Oregon Rd. & Nav. Co.
et al. (98 Fed. Rep. 16), 39, 102, 103,
229, 357, 378, 412, 433, 435, 463, 467.
Allen & Lewis v. Oregon Rd. & Nav. Co.
et al. (106 Fed. Rep. 265), 39, 229, 357,
379, 433, 435, 467.

Amarillo Gas Co. v. Atchison, T. & S. F.
Ry. Co. et al. (12 I. C. C. R. 209), 307,
337.

American Fruit Union v. Cincinnati, N.
O. & T. P. Ry. Co. (12 I. C. C. R. 411),
119, 365, 535, 596, 619.
American Grass Twine Co. v. Chicago, St.

P. M. & O. Ry. Co. et al. (12 I. C. C. R.
141), 302, 376, 535, 540, 556.
American Nat. Live Stock Assn. v. Texas
& P. Ry. Co. et al. (12 I. C. C. R. 32),
243, 469, 610.

American Warehousemen's Assn. v. Illi-
nois Cent. Rd. Co. et al. (7 I. C. C. R.
556), 146, 155, 161, 315, 507, 518, 522,
568, 569, 595.

Andrews Soap Co. v. Pittsburgh, C. & St.
L. Ry. Co. et al. (4 I. C. C. R. 41, 3 I.
C. R. 77), 88, 93.

Anthony Salt Co. v. Missouri Pacific Ry.
Co. et al. (5 I. C. C. R. 299, 4 I. C. R.
33), 358, 361, 384, 415, 428, 556.
Armour Packing Co. v. United States (153

Fed. Rep. 1, 82 C. C. A. 135), 38, 118,
131, 135, 138, 514, 565, 566, 579, 582, 587,
602.

Artz v. Seaboard Air Line Ry. Co. (11 I.
C. C. R. 458), 320, 503, 504.

645

Associated Wholesale Grocers v. Missouri
Pac. Ry. Co. (1 I. C. C. R. 156, 1 I. C.
R. 393), 177, 503, 616.
Atchison, T. & S. F. Ry. Co. v. Denver &
N. O. Rd. Co. (110 U. S. 667, 4 Sup. Ct.
R. 185, 28 L. ed. 291), 109, 553, 607.
Atchison, T. & S. F. Rd. Co. v. Goetz & B.
Mfg. Co. (51 Ill. App. 151), 191.
Atchison, T. & S. F. Ry. Co. v. Holmes (18
Okl. 92, 90 Pac. 22), 115, 117, 580.
Atlanta, K. & N. Ry. Co. v. Horne (106
Tenn. 73, 59 S. W. 134), 39, 116, 148,
581, 591.
Augusta S. Rd. Co. v. Wrightsville Rd. Co.
(74 Fed. Rep. 522), 65, 110.

B

Baltimore & O. R. Co. v. Hamburger et al.
(155 Fed. Rep. 849), 570, 612.
Banner v. Wabash R. Co. (131 Iowa 405,
108 N. W. 759), 538.
Barden & Swarthout v. Lehigh Valley R.
Co. (12 I. C. C. R. 193), 546, 599, 600.
Barrow v. Yazoo & M. V. Rd. Co. et al.

(10 I. C. C. R. 333), 219, 241, 368, 642.
Bates v. Pennsylvania Rd. Co. (3 I. C. C.
R. 435, 2 I. Č. R. 715), 440

Pennsylvania Rd. Co. et al. (4 I.
Bates v.
C. C. R. 281, 3 I. C. R. 296, vacating
order in same case, 3 I. C. C. R. 435, 2.
I. C. R. 715), 121, 206, 440.

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

Behlmer v. Louisville & N. Rd. Co. et al.
(71 Fed. Rep. 835; reversed, 83 Fed.
Rep. 898, 28 C. C. A. 229; decree of
Circuit Court of Appeals reversed, Louis-
ville & N. R. Co. v. Behlmer, 175 U. S.
648, 20 Sup. Ct. R. 209, 44 L. Ed. -,
refusing to enforce order of Commission,
6 I. C. C. R. 257, 4 I. C. R. 520), 217,
283, 284, 311, 521.
Behlmer v. Louisville & N. Rd. Co. et al.
(83 Fed. Rep. 898, 28 C. C. A. 229, re-

1

[REFERENCES ARE TO PAGES.]

versing 71 Fed. Rep. 835; decree of Circuit Court of Appeals reversed, Louisville & N. R. Co. v. Behlmer, 175 U. S. 648, 20 Sup. Ct. R. 209, 44 L. Ed. refusing to enforce order of Commission, 6 I. C. C. R. 257, 4 I. C. R. 520), 274, 284, 289, 311.

Behlmer v. Memphis & C. Rd. Co. et al. (6 I. C. C. R. 257, 4 I. C. R. 520; petition to enforce order of Commission denied, Behlmer v. Louisville & N. Rd. Co., 71 Fed. Rep. 835; decree of Circuit Court reversed, 83 Fed. Rep. 898; decree of Circuit Court of Appeals reversed, Louisville & N. Rd. Co. v. Behlmer, 175 U. S. 648, 20 Sup. Ct. R. 209, 44 L. Ed. -), 217, 274, 283, 284, 298.

Behrend v. Washington Southern Ry. Co. et al. (9 I. C. C. R. 637), 320, 505, 621. Bell Co. v. Baltimore & O. S. Rd. Co. et al. (9 I. C. C. R. 632), 491.

Bigbee & Warrior Rivers Packet Co. v. Mobile & O. Rd. Co. (60 Fed. Rep. 545), 166, 4.0.

Birmingham Packing Co. v. Texas & P. Ry. Co. et al. (12 I. C. C. R. 29), 241, 469, 610.

Birmingham Packing Co. v. Texas & P. Ry. Co. et al. (12 I. C. C. R. 500), 470. Bishop v. Duval, Receiver, etc. (3 I. C. C. R. 128, 2 I. C. R. 514), 335.

Blackman v. Southern Ry. Co. (10 I. C. C. R. 352), 533, 595.

Blackwell Milling & E. Co. v. Missouri, K. & T. Ry. Co. (12 I. C. C. R. 23), 166, | 335, 450, 482, 535. Board of Trade of Chattanooga v. East Tennessee, V. & G. Ry. Co. et al. (5 I. C. C. R. 546, 4 I. C. R. 213; order of Commission enforced, 85 Fed. Rep. 107, 99 Fed. Rep. 52; decree of Circuit Court and Circuit Court of Appeals reversed, East Tennessee, V. & G. Ry. Co. v. I. C. C., 181 U. S. 1, 21 Sup. Ct. R. 516), 81, 277, 286, 288, 290, 422.

Board of Trade of Chicago v. Chicago & A. Rd. Co. et al. (4 I. C. C. R. 158, 3 I. C. R. 233), 71, 242, 312, 437, 442. Board of Trade of Dawson Ga. v. Central of Ga. Ry. Co. et al. (8 I. C. C. R. 142), 417, 479.

Board of Trade of Hampton v. Nashville, C. & St. L. Ry. Co. et al. (8 I. C. C. R. 503; petition to enforce order of Commission denied, I. C. C. v. Nashville, C. & St. L. Ry. Co., 120 Fed. Rep. 934), 287, 351, 358, 369, 379, 415, 423, 478, 480,

481.

Board of Trade Kans. City, Mo. v. Chi

cago, B. & Q. Ry. Co. et al. (12 I. C. C. R. 173), 206, 525.

Board of Trade of Lynchburg et al. v. Old Dominion S. S. Co. et al. (6 I. C. C. R. 632), 83, 291, 543.

Board of Trade of Troy, Ala. v, Alabama Midland Ry. Co. et al. (6 I. C. C. R. 1, 4 I. C. R. 349; petition to enforce order of Commission denied, I. C. C. v. Alabama M. Ry. Co., 69 Fed. Rep. 227, 74 Fed. Rep. 715, 168 U. S. 144, 18 Sup. Ct. R. 45, 42 L. Ed. 414), 85, 123, 284, 285, 298, 317, 324, 353, 369, 372, 423, 433, 436, 475, 476, 480, 481, 500, 509, 521. Boards-of-Trade Union v. Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry. Co. (1 I. C. C. R. 215, 1 I. C. R. 608), 205, 431.

Boston & A. Rd. Co. v. Boston & L. Rd.
Co. et al. (1 I. C. C. R. 158, 1 I. C. R.
500), 103, 144, 230, 296, 315, 336, 394.
Boston Chamber of Commerce
V. Lake
Shore & M. S. Ry. Co. et al. (1 I. C. C.
R. 436, 1 I. C. R. 754), 81, 406, 426, 463,
482, 483.

Boston Fruit & Produce Exchange v. New York & N. E. Rd. Co. et al. (4 I. C. C. R. 664, 3 I. C. R. 493), 39, 65, 66, 119. 314, 323, 361, 365, 391, 506, 619, 629, 630. Boston Fruit & P. Exchange v. New York & N. E. Rd. Co. ct al. (5 I. C. C. R. 1, 3 I. C. R. 604), 367.

Boyer v. Chesapeake, O. & S. W. Ry. Co. (7 I. C. C. R. 55), 337. Brabham et al. v. Atlantic Coast Line Rd. Co. (11 I. C. C. R. 464), 320, 358, 504. Brady et al. v. Pennsylvania Rd. Co. et al. (2 I. C. C. R. 131, 2 I. C. R. 78), 309, 376, 509.

Brewer v. Central of Georgia Ry. Co. et al. (84 Fed. Rep. 258, refusing to enforce order of Commission, 7 I. C. C. R. 224), 38, 126, 228, 279, 290, 423. Brewer & Hanleiter v. Louisville & N. Rd. Co. et al. (7 I. C. C. R. 224; petition to enforce order of Commission denied, Brewer et al. v. Central of Georgia Ry. Co. et al. 84 Fed. Rep. 258), 273, 290, 298, 416, 423, 511. Brockway v. Ulster & D. Rd. Co. et al. (8 I. C. C. R. 21), 54, 131, 303, 486. Brown v. Walker (70 Fed. Rep. 46), 188. Brown v. Walker (161 U. S. 591, 16 Sup. Ct. R. 644, 40 L. Ed. 819, affirming 70 Fed. Rep. 46), 189. Brownell v. Columbus & C. M. Rd. Co. (5 I. C. C. R. 638, 4 I. C. R. 285), 182, 444, 492.

Buchanan v. Northern Pacific Rd. Co. (5 I. C. C. R. 7, 3 I. C. R. 655), 214, 358, 370, 375, 388, 395.

« ПредишнаНапред »