Sidebilder
PDF
ePub

Andrews Soap Company v. Pittsburgh, Cincinnati & St. Louis Railway
Company et al., 41.

Beaver & Company v. Pittsburgh, Cincinnati & St. Louis Railway
Company et al., 733.

2. TRAFFIC NOT TO BE CARRIED AT A Loss.

Lehmann, Higginson & Company v. Southern Pacific Company et al., 1. In re Alleged Excessive Freight Rates and Charges on Food Products, 48.

3. FILING OF RATE SHEETS RAISES NO PRESUMPTION AS TO LEGALITY OF RATES.

San Bernardino Board of Trade v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railroad Company et al., 104.

4. DUTY OF, TO PUBLIC.-Rates cannot be arbitrarily changed in the mere discretion of a carrier. They are to be equitably adjusted with regard to the public interests as well as the carriers.

Lehmann, Higginson & Company v. Southern Pacific Company et al., 1. Charges for transportation service should have reasonable relation to the cost of production and value of the service to the producer and shipper.

In re Alleged Excessive Freight Rates and Charges on Food Prod-
ucts, 48.

Delaware State Grange etc. v. New York, Philadelphia & Norfolk
Railroad Company et al., 588.

When a carrier receives low rates from some patrons at some localities, it accepts the legal obligation to give impartial services to other patrons and at other localities that sustain similar relations to the traffic. Manufacturers' and Jobbers' Union of Mankato v. Minneapolis & St. Louis Railway Company et al., 79.

A carrier's duty to the public requires that its service must be alike to all who are situated alike.

Rice, Robinson & Witherop r. Western New York & Pennsylvania
Railroad Company, 131.

5. DUTY OF, TO FURNISH CAR EQUIPMENT.-Ib.

6. DUTY OF, IN CARRYING PETROLEUM OIL.-Ib.

7. EQUALIZATION OF PROFITS OVER DIFFERENT DIVISIONS OF LINE, WHEN UNLAWFUL.-Ib.

8. RISK OF TRANSPORTING LIVE HOGS.

Board of Trade of the City of Chicago v. Chicago & Alton Railroad
Company et al., 158.

9. SUBJECT TO THE ACT.-The common carriers named and referred to in the last clause of section 3 of the Act to regulate commerce are such alone as are subject to the provisions of that statute.

Capehart et al. v. Louisville & Nashville Railroad Company et al., 265. The words "common control, management and arrangement" as found in the first section of the Act to regulate commerce, defined and applied to the special facts of the case.

Boston Fruit and Produce Exchange . New York & New England
Railroad Company et al., 664.

Where two or more roads forming a continuous connecting line between points in different States bill and carry interstate traffic through to certain stations on the last road forming such line, neither the roads together nor any one of them can evade the obligations of the fourth section of said Act by declaring that as to such traffic destined to such stations on such terminal road it is a local carrier.

James & Mayer Buggy Company e. Cincianati, New Orleans & Texas
Pacific Railway Company et al., 744.

10. INFORMAL COMPLAINTS AGAINST.

McMillan & Company v. Western Classification Committee, 276.

11. CONCERNED IN MATTERS COMPLAINED OF SHOULD BE MADE PARTIES DEFENDANT.-Ib.

12. ARRANGEMENTS FOR THROUGH LINES.

Capehart et al. v. Louisville & Nashville Railroad Company et al., 265.
Boston Fruit and Produce Exchange v. New York & New England
Railroad Company et al., 664.

New York & Northern Railway Company v. New York & New Eng-
land Railroad Company et al., 702.

13. DISCRIMINATION BETWEEN CONNECTING Lines.

New York & Northern Railway Company v. New York & New England Railroad Company et al., 702.

14. INTEREST OF IN CONNECTING LINE.-1b.

15. TERMINAL DELIVERY BY AGENT. -Ib.

16. CONTRACTS MADE WITH SHIPPERS PRIOR TO ACT.

Haddock v. Delaware, Lackawanna & Western Railroad Company, 296.

17. WHO ARE ALSO MINERS AND SHIPPERS Of Coal; SEPERATE TRANSPORTATION ACCOUNTS.-Ib.

18. PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE BY.—Ib.

19. POWER OF TO MAKE COMMODITY AND SPECIAL CLASS RATES.-The power of interstate carriers to make commodity class rates and special class rates to meet the circumstances and conditions of traffic along their lines recognized and defined.

New York Board of Trade and Transportation et al. v. Pennsylvania
Railroad Company et al., 447.

20. RATES LONG CONTINUED PRESUMED PROFITABLE.

In re Alleged Excessive Freight Rates and Charges on Food Products, 48.

Coxe Brothers & Company v. Lehigh Valley Railroad Company, 535. 21. OWNER OF CAPITAL STOCK OF COAL COMPANY.

Coxe Brothers & Company v. Lehigh Valley Railroad Company, 535. 22. SPECIAL SERVICE IN TRANSPORTATION OF PERISHABLE Freight.

Boston Fruit and Produce Exchange v. New York & New England
Railroad Company, 664.

Delaware State Grange etc. v. New York, Philadelphia & Norfolk
Railroad Company et al., 588.

23. ADJUSTMENT OF RELATIVE RATES.

Squire & Company v. Michigan Central Railroad Company et al., 611. 24. UNLAWFUL REBATES FROM RATES ON LIVE CATTLE.

Shamberg v. Delaware, Lackawanna & Western Railroad Company et al., 630.

25. UNLAWFUL REBATES FROM RATES BY PAYMENT OF YARDAGE CHARGES.-I. 26. REFUSAL TO FURNISH IMPROVED LIVE STOCK CARS IMPARTIALLY.-Ib. 27. WHEN IMPROVIDENT MANAGEMENT BECOMES UNLAWFUL.-16., 660.

28. NOT PARTIES, WHEN CITED IN AFTER DECISION.

Hamilton & Brown v. Chattanooga, Rome & Columbus Railroad Company et al., 686.

29. COMBINATION RATES CRITICISED.-16.

30. MUST POST SCHEDULES OF RATES ON EXPORT AS WELL AS DOMESTIC TRAFFIC.

New Orleans Cotton Exchange v. Louisville, New Orleans & Texas
Railway Company, 694.

See BURDEN OF PROOF; CARS; CLASSIFICATION; COMPETITION; EVIDENCE;
INTERSTATE COMMERCE; INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION; LOCAL
RATES; LONG AND SHORT HAUL CLAUSE; PRACTICE; PREFERENCE OR
ADVANTAGE; RATES; REASONABLE RATES; RELATIVE RATES: TRAFFIC;
THROUGH RATES; THROUGH ROUTES AND THROUGH RATES; UNJUST DIS-
CRIMINATION; WATER COMPETITION; WATER and RAIL LINES.

1. EMPTY.

CARS.

Lehmann, Higginson & Company v. Southern Pacific Company et al., 1.

2. Box.

Rice, Robinson & Witherop v. Western New York & Pennsylvania
Railroad Company, 131.

3. TANK.-Ib.

4. OWNED BY SHIPPERS.-Ib.

Shamberg v. Delaware, Lackawanna & Western Railroad Company et al., 630.

5. DUTY OF CARRIERS TO FURNISH CANNOT BE TRANSFERRED TO NOR REQUIRED OF SHIPPERS.

Rice, Robinson & Witherop v. Western New York & Pennsylvania
Railroad Company, 131.

6. INABILITY TO FURNISH DOES NOT EXCUSE UNJUST DISCRIMINATION.—Ib.
7. LIVE STOCK.-Single and double deck.

Board of Trade of the City of Chicago v. Chicago & Alton Railroad
Company et al., 158.

8. LIVE STOCK.-Refusal to furnish impartially; mileage on.

Shamberg v. Delaware, Lackawanna & Western Railroad Company, et al., 630.

9. SPECIAL EQUIPMENT FOR PERISHABLE FREIGHT.

Boston Fruit and Produce Exchange v. New York & New England
Railroad Company et al., 664.

Delaware State Grange etc. v. New York, Philadelphia & Norfolk
Railroad Company et al., 588.

See CAR MILEAGE; LONG AND SHORT HAUL CLAUSE, 2; PREFERENCE OR
ADVANTAGE, 7, 15; REASONABLE RATES, 4, 23.

CASES CITED AND AFFIRMED.

1. In re Louisville & Nashville Railroad Company, 1 I. C. C. Rep. 31, etc. Lincoln Board of Trade v. Missouri Pacific Railway Company, 2 I. C. C. Rep. 161.

Little Rock & Memphis Railroad Company . East Tennessee, Virginia & Georgia Railway Company et al., 3 I. C. C. Rep., 1.

Mattingly v. Pennsylvania Company, 3 I. C. C. Rep., 592.

New Orleans Cotton Exchange . Illinois Central Railroad Company et al., 3 I. C. C. Rep. 534.

Lehmann, Higginson & Company . Southern Pacific Company, et al., 17, 18, 21, 27, 29.

2. Myers v. Pennsylvania Company et al., 2 I. C. C. Rep., 573.

Warner o. New York Central & Hudson River Railroad Company et al., 40.

3. Boards of Trade Union, etc., v. Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Company, 1 I. C. C. Rep., 251.

Business Men's Association of the State of Minnesota v. Chicago, St. Paul, Minneapolis & Omaha Railway Company, 2 I. C. C. Rep., 52, etc. In re Chicago, St. Paul & Kansas City Railway Company, 2 I. C. C. Rep., 231.

Raymond v. Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Company, 1 I. C.
C. Rep., 230.

Manufacturers' & Jobbers' Union of Mankato v. Minneapolis & St.
Louis Railway Company et al., 83, 84, 86.

4. Business Men's Association of the State of Minnesota v. Chicago, St. Paul,
Minneapolis & Omaha Railway Company, 2 I. C. C. Rep., 65, etc.
In Re Relative Tank and Barrel Rates on Oil, 2 I. C. C. Rep., 365.

Rice, Robinson & Witherop v. Western New York & Pennsylvania
Railroad Company, 151, 154.

5. Business Men's Association of the State of Minnesota v. Chicago, St. Paul,
Minneapolis & Omaha Railway Company, 2. I. C. C. Rep., 65, etc.
Board of Trade of the City of Chicago v. Chicago & Alton Railroad
Company et al., 187.

6. Business Men's Association of the State of Minnesota v. Chicago, St. Paul, Minneapolis & Omaha Railway Company, 2 I. C. C. Rep., 52, etc. Detroit Board of Trade et al. v. Grand Trunk Railway Company et al., 2 I. C. C. Rep., 320.

In re Chicago, St. Paul & Kansas City Railway Co., 2 I. C. C. Rep. 231. New Orleans Cotton Exchange v. Cincinnati New Orleans & Texas Pacific Railway Company et al., 2 I. C. C. Rep., 375.

New Orleans Cotton Exchange v. Illinois Central Railway Company et al., 3 I. C. C. Rep., 534.

Poughkeepsie Iron Co. v. New York Central & Hudson River Railroad Company et al., 195, 207, 208, 211.

7. Harwell v. Columbus & Western Railroad Company et al., 1 I. C. C. Rep., 236.

In re Louisville & Nashville Railroad Company, 1 I. C. C. Rep., 31. King & Co. v. New York, New Haven & Hartford Railroad Company, 4 I. C. C. Rep., 251.

New Orleans Cotton Exchange v. Illinois Central Railroad Company et al., 3 I. C. C. Rep., 534.

Rice v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railroad Company et al., 243.

8. Business Men's Association of the State of Minnesota v. Chicago, St. Paul, Minneapolis & Omaha Railway Company, 2 I. C. C. Rep., 52.

Harwell et al. v. Columbus & Western Railway Company et al., 1 I. C. C. Rep., 236.

In re Louisville & Nashville Railroad Company, 1 I. C. C. Rep., 31. Little Rock & Memphis Railroad Company v. East Tennessee, Virginia & Georgia Railway Company et al., 3 I. C. C. Rep., 1.

New Orleans Cotton Exchange v. Illinois Central Railroad Company, 3 I. C. C. Rep., 535.

King & Co. v. New York, New Haven & Hartford Railroad Company et al., 261, 262.

9. Little Rock & Memphis Railroad Company v. East Tennessee, Virginia & Georgia Railway Company et al., 3 I. C. C. Rep., 1.

Capehart et al. v. Louisville & Nashville Railroad Company et al., 265, 271.

10. American Wire Nail Company v. Queen & Crescent Fast Freight Line,

3 I. C. C. Rep., 224.

Holbrook et al. v. St. Paul, Minneapolis & Manitoba Railroad Company, 1 I. C. C. Rep., 103.

Lincoln Board of Trade v. Burlington & Missouri River Railroad Company, 2 I. C. C. Rep., 147.

Lincoln Board of Trade v. Union Pacific Railway Company, 3 I. C. C. Rep., 221.

Manufacturers' and Jobbers' Union of Mankato v. Minneapolis & St. Louis Railway Company et al., 1 I. C. C. Rep., 227.

Pennsylvania Company v. Louisville & New Albany & Chicago Railway
Company 3 I. C. C. Rep., 223.

Rawson v. Newport & Mississippi Valley Company, 3 I. C. C. Rep., 266.
Martin v. Southern Pacific Company et al., 2 I. C. C. Rep., 1.
McMorran v. Grand Trunk Railway et al., 3 I. C. C. Rep., 252.

New York Board of Trade and Transportation v. Pennsylvania Rail-
road Company et al., 520, 526, 527.

11. New Orleans Cotton Exchange v. Cincinnati, New Orleans & Texas Pacific Railway Company et al., 2 I. C. C. Rep., 375.

Coxe Brothers & Company v. Lehigh Valley Railroad Company, 563. 12. Scofield et al. v. Lake Shore & Michigan Southern Railway Company, 2 I. C. C. Rep., 90.

Shamberg. Delaware, Lackawanna & Western Railroad Company et al., 661.

13. Chamber of Commerce of the City of Milwaukee v. Flint & Pere Marquette Railroad Company et al., 2 I. C. C. Rep., 553.

Mattingly v. Pennsylvania Company, 2 I. C. C. Rep., 592.

Boston Fruit and Produce Exchange v. New York & New England
Railroad Company et al., 677.

14. In re Tariffs and Classifications of Atlanta and West Point Railroad Company et al., 3 I. C. C. Rep., 19, etc.

Hamilton & Brown v. Chattanooga, Rome & Columbus Railroad Company et al., 691.

CASES DISTINGUISHED.

1. Rice v. Louisville & Nashville Railroad Company, 1 I. C. C. Rep., 503, etc. Scofield et al. v. Lake Shore & Michigan Southern Railway Company, 2 I. C. C. Rep., 90, etc.

Rice, Robinson & Witherop v. Western New York & Pennsylvania
Railroad Company, 134, 143, 145, 146, 152, 153, 154.

2. Capehart et al. v. Louisville & Nashville Railroad Company et al., 4 I. C. C. Rep., 278.

Kentucky & Indiana Bridge Company v. Louisville & Nashville Railroad Company, 2 I. C. C. Rep., 162.

Lehmann, Higginson & Co. v. Southern Pacific Company et al., 4 I. C. C. Rep., 1.

Little Rock & Memphis Railroad Company v. East Tennessee, Virginia & Georgia Railway Company et al., 2 I. C. C. Rep., 1. etc.

Mattingly. Pennsylvania Company, 3 I. C. C. Rep., 592.

New York & Northern Railway Company v. New York & New England Railroad Company et al., 716, 717, 718, 726.

3. Andrews Soap Company v. Pittsburgh, Cincinnati & St. Louis Railway Company et al., 4 I. C. C. Rep., 41.

Beaver & Company . Pittsburgh, Cincinnati & St. Louis Railway
Company et al., 742.

CHARACTER OF TRAFFIC.

See TRAFFIC, 1.

« ForrigeFortsett »