circumstances and conditions, within the meaning of the Interstate Commerce Act, so as to make it necessarily unlawful to furnish, without extra charge, an additional service at one city, by cartage from its depot to consignee's place of business.- Detroit, G. H. & M. R. Co. v. Interst. Com. Commission, 74 Fed. 803, revg. 57 Fed. 1005; affd. 167 U. S. 633, 17 Supp. Ct. R. (U. S.) 986.

Where a carrier announces a system which permits compression of cotton in transit at the nearest point, it cannot allow favored shippers to depart from that rule, and thereby gain an advantage withheld from others.- Muskogee Club v. Mo. K. & T. R. Co., 12 Inters. Com. R. 356.

The compression of cotton is not a matter with which a railroad may deal entirely as it sees fit, and without respect to the effect its practices may have upon the transportation of cotton. Either the carrier must publish a rate upon "flat" cotton and another rate upon compressed cotton, and divorce itself from the matter of compression, or else such compression as is given by the railroad becomes subject to the Interstate Commerce Commission.- Muskogee Club v. Mo. K. & T. R. Co., 12 Inters. Com. R. 356.

Where a railroad has established a "parcels express" for the convenience of persons living in suburban towns, in order to stimulate suburban travel, it is an unjust discrimination to refuse the privileges of this service to one person while according the same to the public generally. Walker v. B. & O. R. Co., 12 Inters. Com. R. 225.

A carrier should not furnish at any point any elevator allowance or free service in connection with the elevation, transfer, mixing, cleaning, clipping, drying, weighing, storage, loading out or shipment of grain which is not furnished at the same time to the same degree and extent at any other common point in rate-making.- City Council v. Mo. Pac. R. Co., 12 Inters. Com. R. 127.

Elevation must be open to all shippers on equal and reasonable terms. Allowances to Elevators by U. Pac. R. Co., 12 Inters. Com. R. 99. A carrier may unload for consignees at the destination if it does so for all shippers alike.- Allowances to Elevators by U. Pac. R. Co., 12 Inters. Com. R. 99.

Carriers may not discriminate between markets or individuals in granting the privilege of stopping a commodity in transit for the purpose of treatment or reconsignment.- St. Louis Hay & G. Co. v. Mobile & O. R. Co., 11 Inters. Com. R. 90.

Shippers are not entitled as a matter of right to mill grain in transit and forward all the milled product under the through rate in force on the grain from the point of origin to the place of ultimate destination, but allowance of the privilege by a carrier to shippers in one section must be without wrongful prejudice to the rights of shippers in an

other section served by its line.-Koch v. Pa. R. Co., 10 Inters. Com. R. 675.

The privilege of stop-over in transit for cleaning, sacking, etc., with privilege of reshipment at a proportional of the through rate, must not be used as a means of secret discrimination or open prejudice.— Matter of Rates & Practices of Mobile & O. R. Co., 9 Inters. Com. R. 373.

A common carrier is not legally obligated to furnish the same terminal facilities for all descriptions of traffic.- Palmers' Board of Trade v. Pq. R. Co., 9 Inters. Com. R. 61.

A carrier may not regard lighterage service, for avoidance of breaking of bulk, as part of the through transportation to more distant points and not to an intermediate point, the carriage to both places being through and continuous.- Warren-Ehret Co. v. Cent. R. Co. of N. J., 8 Inters. Com. R. 598.

Allowance of a longer time before demurrage charges begin, at one point than at another, may be an undue preference.- Pennsylvania Millers' Assn. v. Phila. & R. R. Co., 8 Inters. Com. R 531.

Allowance of free car service is not an unlawful discrimination, unless more is permitted to one shipper of the same commodity than to another.- Pennsylvania Millers' Assn. v. Phila. & R. R. Co., 8 Inters. Com. R. 531.

The practice of "floating cotton" is advantageous to the carrier and shipper, and tends to equalize differences in rates between noncompetitive and competitive points. It cannot be held a discrimination against dealers who decline to take advantage of the privilege.Unlawful Rates in Trans. Cotton by K. C., M. & B. R. Co., 8 Inters. Com. R. 121.

Making the milling in transit rate at a given point 22 cents above the through rate on wheat is not necessarily an undue prejudice.Listman Mill Co. v. Ch. M. & St. P. R. Co., 8 Inters. Com. R. 47.

If a railroad undertakes to render particular services to one corporation, it can not lawfully refuse to render similar services to all under like circumstances, upon payment of like compensation.- State v. Atlantic C. L. R. Co., 51 Fla. 578, 40 So. 875.

Under a special contract, a railroad renders transportation services. for a telegraph company which it is not required to do by its function as a common carrier. It refuses to render similar services for another telegraph company.-Held, such refusal is an unjust discrimination, which the railroad commissioners may investigate and prevent.- State ex rel. Ellis v. Atlantic C. L. R. Co., Fla., 41 So. 705.

A "rebilling" rate, to receive the sanction of the law, must operate uniformly and fairly, and must be open to all shippers alike. It can

not be lawfully restricted to shippers who live in a certain locality, and who previously receive freight over the line of a certain other favored associated carrier.- Alabama & V. R. Co. v. R. R. Commission, 86 Miss. 667, 38 So. 356.

A railroad company must either provide tank-cars for all persons shipping oil, or give such rates for shipments in barrels by the carload, as will place its customers using that method on an equal footing with customers adopting the other method.-State v. C. N. O. & T. P. R. Co., 47 Oh. St. 130, 23 N. E. 928, 7 L. R. A. 319n.

A railroad cannot refuse to accommodate all newspaper publishers on a special train, for which one of them had specially contracted. It is not a defense that any other publisher is free to make the same arrangements for a special train.- Memphis News Pub. Co. v. So. R. Co., 110 Tenn. 684, 75 S. W. 941, 63 L. R. A. 150.

Gratuitous carting, loading, etc., of the goods of one shipper and not of another is an undue preference.- Evershed v. London & N. W. R. Co., L. R. 2 Q. B. D. 254.

[19] Extending facilities to express companies.

Carriers are not bound to extend equal facilities to all express companies desiring to operate over their lines.— The Express Cases, 117 U. S. 1, 6 Sup. Ct. R. (U. S.) 542, 628, revg. 10 Fed. 210, 869, overruling 2 Fed. 465, 18 Fed. 517; Pfister v. Cent. Pac. R. Co., 70 Cal. 169, 11 Pac. 686.

A contract to furnish such an excessive and unnecessary amount of space, in the cars of a railroad, for one express company, as will prevent such carrier from serving others equally entitled to be served, is void.- Texas Exp. Co. v. Tex. & P. R. Co., 6 Fed. 426; Sandford v. C. W. & E. R. Co., 24 Pa. 378.

Express companies are not, through any present magnitude or prospective expansion of their business, entitled to any such preferential facilities or accommodations from a railroad company as would preclude or impede participation by the railroad company or by any of the public in conducting such business with equal advantage on any scale, large or small.- Camblos v. Phila. & R. R. Co., Fed. Cases, No. 2,331.

Special contracts between a carrier and express companies, giving special and exclusive privileges to the latter, are lawful.- Blank v. Ill. Cent. R. Co., 80 Ill. App. 475; affd. 182 Ill. 332; Louisville, N. & C. R. Co. v. Keefer, 146 Ind. 21, 44 N. E. 796, 38 L. R. A. 93; Pittsburg, C. C. & St. L. R. Co. v. Mahoney, 148 Ind. 196, 46 N. E. 917, 47 N. E. 464, 40 L. R. A. 101.

A street railway authorized to do an express business may give exclusive facilities to a single express company, if it does not thereby

deprive the public of reasonable express service.- Dulaney v. United R. & Elect. Co., Md. —, 65 Atl. 45.

A carrier cannot be compelled to furnish special facilities to an expressman to enable him to carry on his business as expressman over such carrier's lines.- Sargent v. Boston & L. R. Co., 115 Mass. 416.

A carrier cannot give one express company an exclusive privilege, as against another.- New Eng. Exp. Co. v. M. C. R. Co., 57 Me. 188; McDuffee v. Portland & R. R. Co., 52 N. H. 430.

[20] Preference in grants of right to do business on carrier's premises.

A railroad may make an exclusive arrangement with one cab company.- Donovan v. Pa. R. Co., 199 U. S. 279, 26 Sup. Ct. R. (U. S.) 91. It is not a discrimination for a carrier which has established on its property an agency to deliver the baggage of passengers, to prevent persons coming on such property to solicit or receive orders in competition with such agency. - Barney v. Oyster Bay S. Co., 67 N. Y. 301, affg. s. c. 2 T. & C. (N. Y.) 598.

N. Y. R. R. L., § 34, forbidding a railroad from giving a preference on its grounds to one of two or more persons competing in the same business, applies only to persons having contractual relations with the company.- New York C. & H. R. R. Co. v. Warren, 31 Misc. (N. Y.) 571, 64 N. Y. Supp. 781.

A railroad may give a hackman an exclusive right of going on its premises, soliciting and carrying away incoming passengers.— New York C. & H. R. R. Co. v. Warren, 31 Misc. (N. Y.) 571, 64 N. Y. Supp. 781.

A depot corporation cannot prohibit all public cabs except of one corporation, from standing and soliciting business on the former's grounds before the entrance to its depot.-Indianapolis U. R. Co. v. Dohn, 153 Ind. 10, 53 N. E. 937, 45 L. R. A. 427.

In an action in trespass by a railroad against a hackman for soliciting business on the company's premises, the validity of a contract between the company and a third person giving the latter exclusive hackman's privileges, cannot be brought into issue by the defendant.— New York, N. H. & H. R. Co. v. Bork, 23 R. I. 218, 49 Atl. 965.

[21] Routing of shipments.

Reservation by carrier of right to route goods,-see ante, § 28, note [28].

Routing of goods as discrimination between connecting carriers,see post, § 35, note [25].

The giving of instructions by the shipper relieves the carrier of obligation to forward by the cheaper route, or do anything as to such route,

etc., except to obey instructions.- Dewey Bros. Co. v. B. & O. R. Co., 11 Inters. Com. R. 481.

In the absence of instructions from the shipper, it is the duty of the receiving carriers not only to charge the lowest combination of rates between given points but to give the shipper the advantage of the shorter route and lower rate.- Dewey Bros. Co. v. B. & O. R. Co., 11 Inters. Com. R. 481.

If the carrier, contrary to the instructions of the shipper, takes the responsibility of routing the car by indirect, expensive lines instead of by the obvious, direct and cheaper route, or without any instructions so routes the car as to burden the shipper with the needless expense of the longer route, such action is prima facie unjust and unreasonable, and unless affirmatively justified warrants an order of reparation. - Dewey Bros. Co. v. B. & O. R. Co., 11 Inters. Com. R. 481.

Initial carriers may not reserve to themselves the exclusive right to route goods beyond their own lines.- Consolidated F. Co. v. So. Pac. R. Co., 9 Inters. Com. R. 182.

The practice of the initial carriers in joint routes, of reserving exclusive control of the routing of goods and denying the shipper any choice between established routes, etc., may amount to undue prejudice. - Consolidated F. Co. v. So. Pac. R. Co., 9 Inters. Com R. 182.

The granting of a given routing to one shipper and denying it to another is in itself an unjust discrimination.- Consolidated F. Co. v. So. Pac. R. Co., 9 Inters Com. R. 182.

A carrier may not discriminate between shippers in selecting the connecting carriers and the route by which through shipments will go. - Rea v. Mobile & O. R. Co., 7 Inters. Com. R. 43.

The shipper may control the route by which his freight shall go.Rea v. Mobile & O. R. Co., 7 Inters. Com. R. 43; Pankey v. Richmond & D. R. Co., 3 Inters. Com. R. 33, 3 I. C. C. R. 658; Inman v. St. L. S. W. R. Co., 14 Tex. Civ. App. 39, 37 S. W. 37; San Antonio & A. P. R. Co. v. Stribling, 14 Tex. Ct. R. 38, 89 S. W. 963. modfg. s. c. 12 Tex. Ct. R. 200, 86 S. W. 374.

In forwarding goods beyond the terminus of his route, a carrier is bound to follow with fidelity the precise instructions of the consignor, deviating from such instructions at his peril.- Hinckley v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. Co., 56 N. Y. 429.

When a carrier accepts goods to be carried with a direction on the part of the owner to carry them a certain way, or by a specified route, he is bound to obey such direction.- Maghee v. Camden & A. R. Co., 45 N. Y. 514.

Where a bill of lading for goods consigned to a point beyond the terminus of the initial carriers line is silent as to the particular line