such joint rates, fares and charges. A railroad corporation and a street railroad corporation shall not be required to interchange cars except on such terms and conditions as the commission may direct.

Provisions of the Interstate Commerce Act forbidding discrimination between connecting carriers,—see Interst. Com. Act, § 3, post, Appendix B.

Criminal liability of interstate carriers,- see Interst. Com Act, § 10, Elkins Act, § 1, post, Appendix B.

Power of the Interstate Commerce Commission to establish through routes and joint rates,- see Interst. Com. Act, § 15, post, Appendix B.

Provisions of N. Y. Railroad Law as to furnishing of facilities, etc., to connecting carriers,- see N. Y. R. R. L., § 35.

Liability of railroad for transportation and delivery of passengers or freight received by it to be transferred to points on connecting roads,- see N. Y. R. R. L., § 48.

Duty of street surface railroads to give transfers at connecting points, see N. Y. R. R. L., § 104.

Power of railroad corporations organized under the N. Y. Rapid Transit Act as to crossing and intersecting other railway lines,see N. Y. Rap. Tr. Act, § 24, subd. 3, post, Appendix A. Construction of connecting railroads under New York Rapid Transit Act, see N. Y.'Rap. Tr. Act, §§ 32, 32a, post, Appendix A. Common carriers shall file with the Commission sworn copies of all traffic arrangements with other carriers,― see ante, § 30, subd. 2. Duty of carriers not to subject particular traffic to undue prejudice,see also ante, §§ 31. 32.

Duty of carriers to furnish sufficient and suitable cars,- see post, § 37. Actions by aggrieved persons for loss or damage from failure to furnish facilities for interchange of traffic between connecting lines,- see post, $ 40.

Power of Commission to establish through routes and joint rates,- see post, § 49.

General rules of statutory construction,― see ante, § 1, notes [23]-[40].
Purpose of acts regulating railroads,- see ante, § 1, note [32].
Who are common carriers.—see ante, § 2, notes [2]-[7].

What constitutes a railroad or street railroad,—see ante, § 2, note [8].
Withholding through rates as form of discrimination against shippers,

see ante, § 32, note [23].

Liability of carriers on through shipments,- see post, § 38, note [12]. Limitation of liability on through shipments,- see post, § 38, note

[1] Extending of equal rates and facilities to connecting carriers - In general.

Duty of railroads to furnish accommodations on equal terms to connecting railroads,- see N. Y. R. R. L., § 35.

What carriers charged with duty,- see post, note [11].

66

Meaning of term rate," see ante, § 26, note [26].
Discretion of carrier in fixing rates,- see ante, § 26, note [28].

Duty to charge rates reasonable in themselves,- see ante, § 26, note [29].

General duty of carriers not to unduly discriminate as to rates,- see ante, § 31, note [1].

General duty of carriers not to discriminate in giving of facilities,see ante, § 32, note [1].

Power of Commission to determine as to rates,- see post, § 49, notes [6]-[12].

Mandamus to compel furnishing of equal facilities to connecting carriers, see post, § 57, note [13].

Instructions to a receiver operating a common carrier were: "He will not discriminate in his rates and facilities against any connecting line, but will give to both equal rates and facilities for equal service, from all points."- Cutting v. Florida R. & N. Co., 30 Fed. 663.

While a carrier under the law may decline to join with its connections in the making of joint through routes and rates applicable thereon, or may join in such arrangements with one connection and refuse to do so with another, no carrier can for any reason or purpose lawfully exact unreasonable and unjust rates for any service it may render under any through route arrangement it may make.- Matter of Alleged Unlawful Discrimination, 11 Inters. Com. R. 587.

Whatever rights and privileges, other than those of a natural person, are claimed by one railroad against a connecting company, must, in the absence of statute, be found in the charters of the companies or arise from contract.- Shelbyville R. Co. v. Louisville C. & L. R. Co., 82 Ky. 541.

A common carrier is as much bound to carry for another carrier as it is to carry for other persons who offer goods for transportation.- Louisville & N. R. Co. v. Central Stock Yards Co., 30 Ky. L. R. 18, 97 S. W. 778.

[2]

Interchange of traffic at junction points.

Duty to receive and forward passengers and freight from junction points,- see N. Y. R. R. L., § 34.

Issuance of transfers by street railroads,- see ante, § 26, notes [58]

[72].

Carriers may be required to transfer freight without breaking bulk,see post, § 39, note.

Power of Commission to fix terms for interchange of traffic by connecting carriers,- see post, § 49, note [14].

The provision in the Colorado Constitution which prohibits unreasonable discrimination in rates or facilities" does not, in the absence of legislation, require a railroad which has made arrangements with a connecting road for the handling of joint business at a union station at the junction point, to make similar arrangements with a rival connecting line at an adjacent junction point.-Atchison, T. & S. R. Co. v. D. & N. O. R. Co., 110 U. S. 667, 4 Sup. Ct. R. (U. S.) 185, revg. s. c. 13 Fed. 546.

Interst. Com. Act, § 3, providing that a railroad shall extend equal facilities to all connecting carriers, means that where a railroad subject to the provisions of the Act has provided and established at any given place its facilities in the shape of yards, stations and depots for the interchange of traffic, or for the receiving, forwarding or delivering of passengers and property, and affords such facilities to some of its connecting lines at that point, the same proper, reasonable and equal facilities for such interchange, or for receiving, forwarding and delivery of passengers and property must be extended to other connecting lines at that point; and a company making a physical connection at a point other than that at which the established road has already provided its facilities and conducts its interchange with other connecting lines, cannot demand or require an interchange of freight at such point of physical connection, without first furnishing at such point reasonable and proper facilities for the interchange sought.- Kentucky & I. Bridge Co. v. L. & N. R. Co., 37 Fed. 567, 2 L. R. A. 289.

[3]

Contracts for through routes, rates, etc.

A carrier may contract with one connecting carrier for through traffic, through billing, division of through rates, etc., without being obligated to enter into a similar contract with another connecting carrier.- Gulf, C. & S. F. R. Co. v. Miami Ss. Co., 86 Fed. 407.

There is no principle of common law which prevents a carrier from selecting from two or more railroads, one which it will employ in sending shipments beyond its own lines, on through bills of lading, or as their agent to receive freight and transmit it on through bills to their own line, without breaking bulk. To make such an arrangement for the interchange of passengers and freight is not a contract in unlawful restraint of trade under the Sherman Act. The Interstate Commerce Act has not taken away the right of a carrier to make such arrangements.Prescott & A. C. R. Co. v. A. T. & S. F. R. Co., 73 Fed. 438, explaining, New York & N. R. Co. v. N. Y. & N. E. R. Co., 50 Fed. 867.

Neither public policy nor any provision of statute forbids a carrier engaged in interstate commerce from making an exclusive contract with a railroad, whose route connects with and extends beyond that of such railroad company, for through billing and rating over the connecting lines, and by which such carrier is given the exclusive right to receive from the rail company and forward freights destined to points beyond the line of such railroad.- St. Louis Co. v. L. & N. R. Co., 65 Fed. 39. Under Interst. Com. Act, § 3, when a carrier enters into an arrangement with another carrier for through billing and rating and for the use of its tracks and terminals, it is not compelled to make the same arrangement with all other connecting carriers if the facilities for interchange of traffic are the same, especially without reference to the question whether the proposed arrangement is of material advantage to the public.- Little Rock & M. R. Co. v. St. L. S. W. R. Co., 63 Fed. 775, 26 L. R. A. 192, affg. s. c. 59 Fed. 400.

When a carrier, by private arrangement, forms a through route, and establishes joint through rates, fares or charges with certain connecting lines, it is not compelled to concede to all other connecting railroads the same or equal through rates on traffic which the latter may offer for transportation.- Kentucky & I. Bridge Co. v. L. & N. R. Co., 37 Fed. 567, 2 L. R. A. 289.

A railroad may make through rates with one steamboat line and refuse to make such rates with another at the same point. It cannot refuse to receive and deliver freight to both lines.- Capehart v. L. & N. R. Co., 3 Inters. Com. R. 278, 4 I. C. C. R. 265.

Wharfage not interstate commerce,- see ante, § 25, note [6].

Where a carrier has erected a wharf which it uses to enable it to continue transportation beyond its line, over the line of a certain steamship company, another carrier has no right to demand the use of such wharf for the purpose of forwarding goods by a line of steamers other than that patronized by the owner of the wharf, such owner having sufficient yards and depots elsewhere for the handling of freight and passengers; and the fact that the wharf was erected at the foot of a street under authority from the city is immaterial.-Louisville & N. R. Co. v. West Coast Co., 198 U. S. 483, 25 Sup. Ct. R. (U. S.) 745.

A contract between a railroad company and a city, and a state statute, giving the right to all other railroads to use its terminal facilities, does not contravene the provision of the Interst. Com. Act, § 3, providing that the section shall not be construed as requiring any such common carrier to give the use of its tracks or terminal facilities to another carrier engaged in the same business.- State v. Chicago, M. & St. P. R. Co., 33 Fed. 391.

A railroad may contract with one of two rival steamboat companies that such company shall have exclusive use of the railroad's terminal facilities at a given point.-Alexandria Bay Co. v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. 'Co., 18 App. Div. (N. Y.) 527, 45 N. Y. Supp. 1091.

[5]

Hauling of cars of connecting carrier.

Power of Commission to compel interchange of cars,- see post, § 49, note [14].

That a car is a refrigerator car, not usually or most advantageously used for the kind of freight contained therein, does not justify refusal to accept such a car from a connecting carrier.- Gulf, C. & S. F. R. Co. v. Long Star Co., 26 Tex. Civ. App. 531, 63 S. W. 1025.

Penalties and damages may be recovered for refusal to accept a car of freight from a connecting carrier.- Gulf, C. & S. F. R. Co. v. Lone Star Co., 26 Tex. Civ. App. 531, 63 S. W. 1025.

Right of carrier to prepayment of charges,—see ante, § 26, note [51].

The common law does not require a common carrier, in furnishing equal facilities, to advance money to all connecting carriers on the same terms; nor to give credit for the carriage of articles of trade and commerce to all connecting carriers because it extends credit for services to others.- Southern Ind. Exp. Co. v. U. S. Exp. Co., 88 Fed.

659.

There is no principle of the common law requiring a common carrier receiving articles of trade and commerce from a connecting line to advance or assume the payment to the connecting line of the charges accrued thereon for the transportation of such articles from the point of origin; nor to transport the goods tendered without prepayment therefor.- Southern Ind. Exp. Co. v. U. S. Exp. Co., 88 Fed. 659.

A railroad engaged in interstate transportation has a right both at common law and under the Interstate Commerce Act to demand prepayment of freight when delivered to it by one connecting carrier, without exacting such prepayment when delivered by another connecting carrier; and may advance freight charges to one such carrier without doing so to the other.- Gulf, C. & S. F. R. Co. v. Miami Ss. Co., 86 Fed. 407.

An interstate carrier does not subject another carrier to an unreasonable disadvantage under Interst. Com. Act, § 3, by exacting of that carrier the prepayment of freight on all property received from it at a station, while it does not require charges to be paid in advance on freight received from other individuals and corporations at such station. -Little Rock & M. R. Co. v. St. L. S. W. R. Co., 63 Fed. 775, 26 L. R. A. 192, affg. s. c. 59 Fed. 400.