Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

Com. Commission, 162 U. S. 197, 16 Sup. Ct. R. (U. S.) 666; Export & Domestic Rates, 8 Inters. Com. R. 214.

Questions of unjust discrimination or undue preference must be treated broadly and practically. The carrier's business is one which involves so many considerations, and the necessity for taking account of so many conditions and factors, that questions of this kind cannot be decided by any process of mere arithmetic or mathematical calculation, and do not admit of any rigidly theoretical rules in their solution. - Interst. Com. Commission v. L. & N. R. Co., 73 Fed. 409.

That the cost of delivering freight to the carrier for transportation varies with different stations is immaterial where the issue is as to the reasonableness of rates from such stations.- Chicago F. P. Cov. Co. v. Ch. & N. W. R. Co., 8 Inters. Com. R. 316.

Relative distance, cost of service, volume of business, competition of rail and water ways, ocean service, terminal facilities, storage capacity, are elements of importance in determining the relative reasonableness of rates on shipments from interior points to seaboard cities.- Boston Chamber of Commerce v. L. S. & M. S. R. Co., 1 Inters. Com. R. 354, 391, 462, 604, 754, 1 I. C. C. R. 438.

Where limited tickets are not in form a lowering of the rates, but a lower rate for a poorer service, the court will look beyond the terms of the ticket to the circumstances of the transaction, to see if there has been an actual lowering.- Edson v. So. Pac. R. Co., 144 Cal. 182, 77 Pac. 894.

[26]

Circumstances of each case must determine.

Questions of alleged discrimination arising under a practice of partial or absolute free cartage, or growing out of the existence of side-tracks to shippers' doors, must depend largely for solution on the particular circumstances of each case.- Hezel M. Co. v. St. L. A. & T. H. R. Co., 2 Inters. Com. R. 571, 3 Inters. Com. R. 701, 5 I. C. C. R. 57.

[27]

Reasonableness of rates in themselves material. That a higher rate is not unreasonable in itself does not prevent its being discriminative.- Samuels v. L. & N. R. Co., 31 Fed. 57.

The reasonableness of rates in themselves is a matter material to the issue raised by a charge that the relation between such rates and rates in another part of the country is unduly prejudicial to those using the former.- Freight Bureau v. C. N. O. & T. P. R. Co., 6 Inters. Com. R. 195.

[blocks in formation]

Through rates as standard for determining reasonableness of local rates.- see post, note [71].

Through rate not basis for determining whether local rate violates long and short haul rule,— see ante, § 36, note [22].

The questions of unjust discrimination, under Interst. Com. Act, § 2, or undue preference, under § 3, often, if not always, involve a contrasting of the rates to other places and persons, since those sections involve the question of relative rates, with all their elements.-Interst. Com. Commission v. L. & R. Co., 73 Fed. 409.

Where two railroads operating connecting lines unite in making a joint through tariff, they form for the purpose of that transportation practically a new and independent route. The making of a joint rate is not compulsory, but if they do make one, the through tariff on the joint line is not the standard by which the separate tariff of either company is to be measured.- Chicago & N. W. R. Co. v. Osborne, 52 Fed. 912, revg. s. c. 48 Fed. 49, certiorari denied, 146 U. S. 341, 13 Sup. Ct. R. (U. S.) 281.

Where the reasonableness of rates is in question, comparison may be made, not only with rates on another line of the same carrier, but also with those on the lines of other and distinct carriers.- Freight Bureau v. C. N. O. & T. P. R. Co., 6 Inters. Com. R. 195.

The comparison of rates on one road or line with those on another for the purpose of determining the reasonableness of either, is valuable only to the extent of the similarity of circumstances and conditions attending the transportation in the two cases.- Freight Bureau v. C. N. O. & T. P. R. Co., 6 Inters. Com. R. 195.

In determining the relative reasonableness of a rate markedly grouped, it may not fairly be compared with the rate per ton per mile from that station of the group which is farthest from the destination, but only with the rate from that station which is the average distance of all the stations in the group from the place of destination.- Delaware Grange v. N. Y. P. & N. R. Co., 3 Inters. Com. R. 828, 5 I. C. C. R. 161.

Where a carrier has in good faith adopted a rate not unreasonable in itself, though exceptional, but forced upon it by the necessity of meeting a rate made by a railroad not subject to control by the same commission, such rate is not a fair basis of test of the reasonableness of other rates of such carrier.- Business Men's Assn. v. Ch. St. P., M. & O. R. Co., 2 Inters. Com. R. 41, 2 I. C. C. R. 52.

[blocks in formation]

In determining questions as to discriminations or undue preference in rates, under Interst. Com. Act, §§ 2, 3, mileage is a circumstance to be considered along with many others, but is neither decisive nor the most important.- Interst. Com. Commission v. L. & N. R. Co., 73 Fed. 409.

The comparative reasonableness of rates from a shipping point to two markets, so far as distance is controlling, should be tested by distance over the shortest available routes, rather than those over which the traffic is or may be actually carried.- Chamber of Commerce v. Ch. M. & St. P. R. Co., 7 Inters. Com. R. 481.

It is proper for a carrier, within reasonable limits, to accept less per ton per mile upon long hauls than upon short ones and to widen the disparity between such rates as the difference in distance increases.Colorado F. & I. Co. v. So. Pac. Co., 6 Inters. Com. R. 488.

[ocr errors]

Distance or mileage is by no means the only, or in many cases the most important, factor in rate making, but, other things being equal, it is a circumstance of great, if not controlling weight.- Freight Bureau v. C. N. O. & T. P. R. Co., 6 Inters. Com. R. 195.

Charges for distances greatly dissimilar need not be proportioned to the relative distances.- Eau Claire v. Ch. M. & St. P. R. Co., 3 Inters. Com. R. 174, 314, 4 Inters. Com. R. 65, 5 I. C. C. R. 264.

The principle that the rate per ton per mile that can be justly charged should decrease with the distance cannot be invoked to overthrow a system of grouped rates made necessary by physical conditions. Manufacturers' Union v. M. & St. L. R. Co., 1 Inters. Com. R. 483, 630, 2 Inters. Com. R. 228, 302, 3 Inters. Com. R. 115, 4 I. C. C. R. 79. [30] Relations between carrier and shipper relevant. Animosity between a carrier and a shipper may be proved by the latter to show the former wrongfully discriminated against him.— Houston, E. & W. T. R. Co. v. Campbell, 91 Tex. 551, 45 S. W. 2, 43 L. R. A. 225n.

[blocks in formation]

Where coal companies which had organized a competing line to tidewater made contracts with the railroads for the purchase of the collieries by the railroad companies, which resulted in the abandonment of the proposed competing line, the contracts are relevant evidence bearing on the manner in which rates are fixed, and their production may be compelled.- Interst. Com. Commission v. Baird, 194 U. S. 25, 24 Sup. Ct. R. (U. S.) 563.

[32] Dissimilarity of circumstances and conditions as justification-In general.

Dissimilarity as justifying discriminations in facilities and service,see post, § 32, note [6].

Dissimilarity of circumstances as justification for violations of long and short haul rule,- see post, § 36, notes [24]-[35].

Cost of carrying as justifying violations of long and short haul rule, see post, § 36, note [26].

Merely because rates to one point would ordinarily be less than rates to another, it does not follow that the rates to the one may be made

so low and to the other so high as to utterly exclude the latter from any share of the traffic originating on the line.- Interst. Com. Commission v. L. & N. R. Co., 118 Fed. 613.

Substantially dissimilar conditions justify a dissimilarity in rates. but will not justify every discrimination which a railroad chooses to make.- Interst. Com. Commission v. T. & P. R. Co., 57 Fed. 948, affg. 52 Fed. 187; revd. on other grounds, 162 U. S. 197, 16 Sup. Ct. R. (U. S.) 666.

To render a discrimination unlawful, a preference given to one person over another must be contemporaneous and under substantially similar conditions. Cowan v. Bond, 39 Fed. 54.

That the favored shippers have no vested rights in them, but that they may be withdrawn at the pleasure of the carrier, does not excuse undue discriminations.- Red Rock F. Co. v. B. & O. R. Co., 11 Inters. Com. R. 438.

Substantially dissimilar circumstances and conditions may justify a difference in the scale of rates to various points.-Aberdeen Commercial Assn. v. Mobile & O. R. Co., 10 Inters. Com. R. 289.

That business was done in that particular way for many years before the Interstate Commerce Act was passed, does not legalize a practice amounting to unjust discrimination.-Stone v. Detroit, G. H. & M. R. Co., 2 Inters. Com. R. 152, 185, 3 Inters. Com. R. 60, 3 I. C. C. R. 613. Under a Pennsylvania statute forbidding discrimination, in order to entitle a shipper to recover for discrimination in rates, it must appear that the discrimination was made for a like service and under conditions alike in all material respects, and the burden of proof is on the plaintiff.— Paine v. Pa. R. Co., 7 Kulp (Pa.) 187.

A threat by the owner of collieries that if he is not given a less rate than is given other collieries, he will build a railway of his own, does not justify the giving of a lower rate.- Harris v. Cockermouth R. Co., 3 C. B. (N. S.) 693.

[33]

What constitutes dissimilarity in general.

The B. & O. R. Co. transported freight consigned to one party in Pittsburg for a given sum and paid for the carting of the same to his warehouse, but charged another party the saine amount for transportation to the depot merely. The former party had sidetrack connections with another road and could obtain transportation directly to his warehouse for the amount charged by the B. & O., but the latter party had no such connection and was obliged to pay his own cartage, over whichever line the freight was sent.- Held, that these facts did not show such a difference in circumstances and conditions as would justify the paying the cartage for one shipper and refusing to do a like service for the other.Wight v. U. S., 167 U. S. 512, 17 Sup. Ct. R. (U. S.) 822.

[graphic]

The carrying of goods of one shipper in carload lots and the carrying of goods which a forwarding agent receives in less than carload lots from various shippers and combines into carload lots, are not like and contemporaneous services, and the carrier is not prohibited by Inters. Com. Act, § 2, 3, from charging more for the latter than for the former service.- Lindquist v. Grand Trunk W. R. Co., 121 Fed. 915.

The phrase "under substantially similar circumstances and conditions " refers only to the matters of carriage.- Capital C. G. Co. v. Central V. R. Co., 11 Inters. Com. R. 104.

The "circumstances and conditions" surrounding a shipment are the same when the consignor is the actual owner of the entire carload as when the consignee is such owner.- - Buckeye Buggy Co. v. C. C. C. & St. L. R. Co., 9 Inters. Com. R. 620.

Transporting a private car of a commercial salesman is not a service substantially similar to transporting a private car of a pleasure party.Carr v. No. Pac. R. Co., 9 Inters. Com. R. 1.

An export rate is not made under similar circumstances and conditions with a domestic rate.- Kemble v. Boston & A. R. Co., 8 Inters. Com. R. 110.

The English interpretation of what constitutes substantially similar circumstances and conditions is not wholly applicable to American transportation.-R. R. Commission of Ga. v. Clyde Ss. Co., 4 Inters. Com. R. 120, 5 I. C. C. R. 324.

In passenger transportation the words "under substantially similar circumstances and conditions" relate to the nature and character of the service and not to the social, political or business affiliations of the passengers. In re Boston & M. R. Co., 3 Inters. Com. R. 717, 5 I. C. C. R. 69.

[ocr errors]

Differences in the social, political and financial standing of passengers do not make their transportation not "under substantially similar circumstances and conditions."-In re Boston & M. R. Co., 3 Inters. Com. R. 717, 5 I. C. C. R. 69.

Where a railway enters into a contract whereby a shipper is permitted. to erect a warehouse on railroad property for the reception, storage and shipment of grain at a certain station, the shipper to charge only compensatory commission for the storage and delivery of grain from said warehouse, and the railway agrees to carry the grain of the shipper in not less than carload lots at a rate less than that charged transient shippers, there is no unjust discrimination, as there is not a like service in both cases, under substantially like circumstances and conditions.America Central Ins. Co. v. Ch. & A. R. Co., 74 Mo. App. 89.

A railroad entered into a contract to carry coal to a manufactory for a certain rate, the manufacturing company being bound to take a certain

« AnteriorContinuar »