TERMINATES THE CONTROVERSY.-Continued. Bishop v. Duval, receiver, etc. Harris v. Duval, receiver, etc., et al. Lincoln Board of Trade v. Union Pacific Railway Company. Rawson v. Newport News and Mississippi Valley Company. Bates v. Pennsylvania Railroad Company et al. WHEN REPARATION IS MADE NO ORDER WILL BE ISSUED.— New Orleans Cotton Exchange v. Louisville, New Orleans and CONDITIONS. See Circumstances and Conditions. CONGRESS. POWER TO REGULATE INTERSTATE COMMERCE ABSOLUTE.— Kauffman Milling Company v. Missouri Pacific Railway Company et al. CONNECTING LINES. WATER AND RAIL. Capehart et al. v. Louisville and Nashville Railroad Company New York and Northern Railway Company v. New York and TRANSPORTATION OF INTERSTATE TRAFFIC BY INITIAL CARRIER BETWEEN Boston Fruit and Produce Exchange v. New York and New TRANSPORTATION OF INTERSTATE TRAFFIC BY TERMINAL CARRIER BETWEEN James and Mayer Buggy Company v. Cincinnati, New Orleans and Texas Pacific Railway Company et al. ONE LINE WHOLLY WITHIN A STATE. New York and Northern Railway Company v. New York and THROUGH CARRIAGE OVER. King & Co. v. New York, New Haven and Hartford Railroad Coxe Brothers & Co. v. Lehigh Valley Railroad Company et al. See Long and Short Haul Clause; Through Routes and Through CONSOLIDATION OF ROADS. COMPETING LINES. Rice, Robinson & Witherop v. Western New York and Pennsylvania Railroad Company. SUBJECT DISCUSSED. Report of Interstate Commerce Commission. CONTINUOUS CARRIAGE OF FREIGHTS. Chicago, Rock Island and Pacific Railway Company v. Chicago and Alton Railroad Company. Mattingly v. Pennsylvania Company. INTERRUPTIONS.-Continuous carriage of freights can not be prevented from being treated as one continuous carriage from the place of shipment to the place of destination by any means or devices intended to evade any of the provisions of the act. In re Acts and Doings of Grand Trunk Railway Company of Canada. CAN NOT BE AVOIDED BY EVASION OF THE LAW.-The carriage of freights can not be prevented from being treated as one continuous carriage from the place of shipment to the place of destination by any means or devices intended to evade any of the provisions of the act. In re Acts and Doings of Grand Trunk Railway Company of Can- Boston Fruit and Produce Exchange v. New York and New See Seventh Section. CONTRACTS. TRACKAGE RIGHTS.-In the absence of statutory provision the rights of a railroad company under a lawful agreement for a specified use of the tracks of another railroad company are measured in respect to the track use by the terms of the contract, and the provisions of the act to regulate commerce applied to the situation created by the contract and had no authority for a different use of the tracks. Alford v. Chicago, Rock Island and Pacific Railway Company. CARS.-A railroad company may acquire cars by construction, by purchase, or by contract for their use, and no one has the power to compel a railroad company to select among these several modes or to contract with all comers. Worcester Excursion Car Company v. Pennsylvania Railroad See Agreements; Facilities of Traffic; Preference and Advantage; Through Routes and Through Rates; Unjust Discrimination. COMPULSORY PRODUCTION OF. In re Alleged Excessive Freight Rates and Charges on Food Haddock v. Delaware, Lackawanna and Western Railroad Com- ENTERED INTO PRIOR TO THE ACT.-No claim is made that the validity of the contract has been impaired or affected by the passage of the Act to Regulate Commerce, although the Commission distinctly propounded the inquiry whether such claim was made. And the Commission carefully ENTERED INTO PRIOR TO THE ACT.-Continued. abstains from expressing any opinion as to the effect of the Act to Regulate Commerce in impairing the validity of the contracts referred to. Haddock v. Delaware, Lackawanna and Western Railroad Company. FOR USE OF IMPROVED STOCK CARS OWNED BY SHIPPERS.— Shamberg v. Delaware, Lackawanna and Western Railroad Company et al. CONSIDERATION OF AS EVIDENCE AFTER FILING. Boston Fruit and Produce Exchange v. New York and New England Railroad Company et al. FOR THROUGH LINES. New York and Northern Railway Company v. New York and See Evidence; Practice; Through Routes and Through Lines. Bates v. Pennsylvania Railroad Company et al. COST OF CARRIAGE. IS AN IMPORTANT FACT IN TRANSPORTATION CHARGES.- Boston Chamber of Commerce v. Lake Shore and Michigan Evans v. Oregon Railway and Navigation Company. McMorran et al. v. Grand Trunk Railway Company of Canada et Thurber et al. v. New York Central and Hudson River Railroad Leggett v. Same. Greene v. Same. Lehmann, Higginson & Co. v. Southern Pacific Company et al. Manufacturers' and Jobbers' Union of Mankato r. Minneapolis ?'. Board of Trade of the City of Chicago . Chicago and Alton Bates v. Pennsylvania Railroad Company et al. New York Board of Trade and Transportation et al. v. Pennsyl- W. S. King & Co. v. The New York, New Haven and Hartford OF LONG-HAUL TRAFFIC NOT TO BE IMPOSED ON LOCAL TRAFFIC. (lb.) ELEMENTS ENTERING INTO. First Annual Report of Interstate Commerce Commission. DIFFERENCE BETWEEN, ON THROUGH AND LOCAL TRAFFIC. Business Men's Association of the State of Minnesota v. Chicago and North-Western Railway Company. MILK TRANSPORTATION.-The elements of extra expense are substantially the same upon milk transported from every part of the line of road over which the special milk trains run. Howell et al. v. New York, Lake Erie and Western Railroad EXCEPTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCES AND CONDITIONS CAUSED BY.— Rice, Robinson & Witherop v. Western New York and Pennsylvania Railroad Company. LOCAL AND THROUGH TRAFFIC.-Through rates should not be made so low as to burden other business with a part of the cost of the business upon which it is imposed. Lippman & Co. v. Illinois Central Railroad Company. CONSIDERATION OF, IN DETERMINING REASONABLE RATES.-In fixing reasonable rates the requirements of operating expenses, bonded debt, fixed charges, and dividend on capital stock from the total traffic are all to be considered, but the claim that any particular rate is to be measured by these as a fixed standard, below which the rate may not lawfully be reduced, is one rightly subject to some qualifications, one of which is the obligations must be actual and in good faith. (Ib.) CORN AND CORN PRODUCTS.-Upon a rehearing of this case, the additional evidence warrants a finding contrary to what appeared and was found in the original hearing, that the costs to the defendants of transporting the direct products of corn, including terminal expenses, properly chargeable as freight charges, between Indianapolis and seaboard points, is greater on the product than on raw corn. Bates v. Pennsylvania Railroad Company et al. BASIS FOR ADJUSTMENT OF RELATIVE RATES.-The proper relation of rates for transportation of strictly competitive articles over the same line should be determined by reference to respective costs of service ascertained with reasonable accuracy. Squire & Co. v. Michigan Central Railroad Company et al. COST OF PRODUCTION. In re Alleged Excessive Freight Rates and Charges on Food Poughkeepsie Iron Company v. New York Central and Hudson Coxe Brothers & Co. v. Lehigh Valley Railroad Company et al. Squire & Co. v. Michigan Central Railroad Company et al. Boston Fruit and Produce Exchange v. New York and New England Railroad Company et al. COST OF SERVICE. See Cost of Carriage. COTTON. New Orleans Cotton Exchange v. Louisville, New Orleans and DAMAGE. See Complaint. DECISION. APPLICATION LIMITED TO PRESENT SITUATION.-The decision in this case applies only to the present situation in the territory in question, and is APPLICATION LIMITED TO PRESENT SITUATION.-Continued. not intended to lay down a permanent rule for the future nor to apply elsewhere. Kauffman Milling Company v. Missouri Pacific Railway Company et al. CHANGED AFTER REHEARING. Bates v. Pennsylvania Company et al. COMMODITY RATES. (lb.) SPECIAL CLASS RATES. (lb.) COMMON CONTROL, MANAGEMENT OR ARRANGEMENT.— Boston Fruit and Produce Exchange v. New York and New DISCRIMINATION AS USED IN THIRD SECTION. New York and Northern Railroad Company v. New York and HOW TAKEN AND FILED. See Appendix H. DEPOSITIONS. DEVICE. Rice, Robinson & Witherop v. Western New York and Pennsylvania Railroad Company. Coxe Brothers & Co. v. Lehigh Valley Railroad Company. Shamberg v. Delaware, Lackawanna and Western Railroad Company et al. See UNJUST DISCRIMINATION; PREFERENCE OR ADVANTAGE. DISCRETION. Lehmann, Higginson & Co. v. Southern Pacific Company. Squire & Co. v. Michigan Central Railroad Company et al. DISCRIMINATION. BETWEEN CONNECTING LINES. Capehart v. Louisville and Nashville Railroad Company et al. See Through Routes and Through Rates; Unjust Discrimination. DISTANCE. LONGER AND SHORTER. See Long and Short Haul Clause; Through and Local Rates; Reasonable Rates; Mileage Rates; Preference or Advantage. DIVIDENDS. In re Alleged Excessive Freight Rates and Charges on Food Products. See Reasonable Rates. |