motors, gasoline engines and parts, farm water plants and accessorial equipment, gas engines, electric storage batteries, fuel tanks, power pumps, hot-water storage tanks, pump and gas engine parts and oil, and electric water coolers and parts. The rates assailed are from 2 to 14 cents higher than rates sought. In no. 25526, complainant, a corporation dealing in hardware at Wichita, seeks reparation in the sum of $140.25. Its shipments consisted of four carloads of washing machines and parts to Wichita from Fort Wayne, Ind., two carloads of radio receiving sets from Fort Wayne, one carload of sweat pads from Greenfield, Ohio, and two carloads of clay targets to Wichita from Findlay, Ohio. The rates assailed are from 1 to 16 cents higher than rates sought. In no. 25508, filed August 27, 1932, one of the complainants, Mentholatum Company, a corporation manufacturing mentholatum at Wichita, seeks reparation in the sum of $361.23. Its shipments consisted of nine carloads of medicine and related commodities to Wichita from Black Rock, N.Y., and one carload of printed advertising matter to Wichita from Cleveland. The rates assailed are 6 to 16 cents, respectively, higher than rates sought. The other complainant in no. 25508, the Lehmann-Higginson Wholesale Grocery Company, a corporation dealing in groceries at Wichita, seeks reparation in the sum of $165.63. Its shipments consisted of two carloads, of chili sauce and catsup, in glass, to Wichita from Booneville, Ind., and two carloads of chili sauce and canned soup to Wichita from Indianapolis, Ind. The rates assailed are 83.5 and 80.5 cents, and the rates sought are 72 and 74 cents respectively. In no. 25475, filed on August 13, 1932, complainant, a corporation dealing in hardware at Wichita, seeks reparation in the sum of $51.41. Its shipments consisted of one carload of iron and steel bars which moved in January, 1930, to Wichita from Pittsburgh, Pa. The rate assailed is 95 cents and the rate sought, 84 cents. In no. 25455, filed July 29, 1932, complainant, Kansas-Nebraska Fertilizer Company, is described in the complaint as follows: Complainant is a firm located in the City of Wichita, Kans., owned and operated by the Wichita Union Stock Yards Company, a corporation existing under and by virtue of the laws of the State of Kansas and is engaged in the business of processing, sale and distribution of pulverized barnyard animal manure. Reparation in the sum of $3,295.34 is sought on 68 carloads moving between May 29, 1929, and May 29, 1931, from Wichita to destinations in central and eastern territories. The rates assailed range from 39.5 to 72 cents and the rates sought, from 39 to 48 cents. Copies of what are purported to be assignments from the Jacob Dold Packing Company to the Kansas-Nebraska Fertilizer Company offered in evidence, are for the recovery of overcharges and were not authenticated. Assignments on 19 carloads are from the Premier Poultry Manure Company to the Kansas-Nebraska Fertilizer Company. The latter is merely the name under which the Wichita Union Stock Yards Company conducts its fertilizer business. Defendants argue that having been deprived by our suspension of the Kansas adjustment, of certain increases, they should not be required to pay reparation to the basis of any reductions. Complianants, however, do not seek reparation to the basis of the reductions suspended. Defendants also maintain that reparation is not warranted because of the fact that the rates assailed were upon a basis then generally maintained at points in the territory north of that included in the revision established on July 14, 1928. They cite Ostenberg Motor Co. v. Alton R. Co., 190 I.C.C. 578, wherein rates on automobiles from Lansing, Mich., and Indianapolis to Salina during a portion of the suspension period here involved, were in issue and were found not unduly high compared with rates in effect during the same period from and to the same general origin and destination territory. The suspension of rates to and from points in Kansas and the entry of a fourth-section order in connection with prescribed rates to and from points in Oklahoma did not constitute approval of the rates here assailed. We have reached the conclusion that there is here no better test of the reasonableness of the rates at the complaining points than comparisons with the rates on like traffic prescribed by us as reasonable maximum rates for concurrent application from and to more distant points on the same rate-making routes. There is no indication of any circumstances that warrant recognition of the rates prescribed and established for application to points in Oklahoma in the general adjustment of southwestern rates, as rates that are lower than reasonable maximum rates for application concurrently to intermediate points on the rate-making routes. In Armour & Co. v. Atchison, T. & S. F. Ry. Co., 196 I.C.C. 139, rates on butter, eggs, and dressed poultry from points in Kansas and Missouri to destinations in official territory, prior to December 3, 1931, were found unreasonable to the extent that they exceeded concurrent rates prescribed in the southwestern revision for application from more distant points on routes through the complaining points. In no. 25455 we find that complainant has no legal entity and that therefore no award of reparation legally can be made. As to the other complaints we find that the rates assailed were unreasonable to the extent that they exceeded rates on like traffic prescribed for application concurrently to the first more distant point in Oklahoma on the same rate-making route. We further find that complainants received shipments as described and paid the charges thereon; that they were damaged thereby in the amount of the difference between the charges paid and those which would have accrued at the rates herein found reasonable; and that they are entitled to reparation, with interest. Complainants should comply with rule V of the Rules of Practice. MCMANAMY, Commissioner, concurring: I am in agreement with the report except to the extent that reparation is denied in no. 25455. The majority finds that the KansasNebraska Fertilizer Company is not a legal entity and that therefore no award of reparation can be made to it. In my opinion this finding is beside the point. The record and the report of the majority show that the Kansas-Nebraska Fertilizer Company is merely a medium through which the Wichita Union Stock Yards Company conducts a part of its business. The Stock Yards Company is a corporation, is named in the complaint, and its relation to the KansasNebraska Fertilizer Company is explained. It should be regarded as the real complainant and reparation should be awarded to it to the extent that it paid the charges on any shipments here involved. 198 I.C.C. No. 25598 OREGON CUDAHY FARM OPERATING COMPANY v. Submitted November 27, 1933. Decided January 10, 1934 Rate on feeder sheep, in double-deck cars from Cokesville, Wyo., to Calexico, Calif., found to have been unreasonable. Reparation awarded. Richard T. Eddy for complainant. H. H. McElroy, Edward C. Renwick, J. E. Lyons, E. E. Bennett. James E. Lyons, J. R. Bell, and G. H. Muckley for defendants. REPORT OF THE COMMISSION DIVISION 3, COMMISSIONERS MOMANAMY, LEE, AND MILLER BY DIVISION 3: Defendants filed exceptions to the report proposed by the examiner. Complainant corporation operates a farm for feeding and finishing livestock in the Imperial Valley of California. By complaint filed October 14, 1932, it alleges that defendants' charges for the transportation of 14 carloads of feeder sheep, in double-deck cars, from Cokeville, Wyo., to Calexico, Calif., in October 1931, were unreasonable. We are asked to award reparation. In view of the establishment on January 25, 1932, of the rates prescribed in Livestock-Western District, 176 I.C.C. 1, 190 I.C.C. 611, hereinafter referred to as the Livestock Investigation, no finding for the future is here sought. Unless otherwise noted, rates on sheep will be stated herein in amounts per carload for double-deck cars 36 feet 7 inches long. On October 13, 1931, complainant received at Calexico 14 carloads of feeder sheep, in double-deck cars, shipped from Cokeville. The shipments moved over the line of the Oregon Short Line Railroad Company from Cokeville to Salt Lake City, Utah, thence over the lines of the Los Angeles & Salt Lake Railroad Company to Colton, Calif., and of the Southern Pacific Company beyond, a total distance of 1,143 miles. Aggregate charges of $238 per car were collected on the basis of a rate of $173.50 per car applicable on fat sheep from Cokeville to Bryn Mawr, Calif., which is on the Southern Pacific 5.5 miles east of Colton, plus $64.50 per car, which includes a branch-line arbitrary of $3.50, applicable on feeder sheep from Bryn Mawr to Calexico. The shipments averaged 19,540 pounds per car at point of origin and 18,761 pounds at destination. Complainant asks for an award of reparation to the basis of the distance scale on which reparation was awarded on carload shipments of feeder sheep, in double-deck cars, from points in Arizona to points in California in Concho Live Stock Co. v. Atchison, T. & S. F. Ry. Co., 178 I.C.C. 501, hereinafter referred to as the Concho scale. Complainant compares the per car and car-mile revenue under the rate assailed with like revenue for the same distance under rates prescribed by us in various cases which involve transportation between points in Mountain-Pacific territory. The rate assailed exceeds the rates with which it is compared by from 32.4 to 85.1 percent. The car-mile revenue ranges from 20.7 cents under the rate assailed to 11.2 cents under the Mountain-Pacific scale prescribed in the Livestock Investigation. Such revenue yielded by the rate under the Concho scale for the distance from Cokeville to Calexico amounts to 11.8 cents. On the basis of a minimum of 20,000 pounds, the rate assailed is equivalent to $1.185 per 100 pounds, which is contrasted with rates of 67.5 cents per 100 pounds for the same distance prescribed for application in Mountain-Pacific territory in the Livestock Investigation and 67.5 cents, minimum 23,000 pounds, equivalent to 85 percent of the rate prescribed on fat sheep in Standard Packing Co. v. Union Pac. R. Co., 178 I.C.C. 203, which concerned rates on fat sheep in double-deck cars, from Wyoming and other States to Los Angeles, Calif. In the report prescribing the Concho scale the rate on feeder sheep was made 85 percent of the corresponding rate on fat sheep and this basis was approved in the Livestock Investigation. The present rate on feeder sheep from Cokeville to Calexico is 64 cents per 100 pounds, minimum 20,000 pounds, the rate prescribed for that distance in the Livestock Investigation. Complainant points out that in numerous cases in the past 3 years we have found reasonable as a basis for an award of reparation on movements of livestock between points in MountainPacific territory the Concho scale with some modifications. Defendants refer to Vail Co. v. Southern Pac. Co., 152 I.C.C. 437, decided March 1, 1929, in which rates of $243 to $249 for distances of 969 to 1,000 miles from points in Nevada to certain points in California for the transportation of feeder sheep, in double-deck cars, were found not unreasonable and reparation was denied. Defendants refer to the fact that the shipments of feeder sheep from Cokeville to Calexico concerned in this proceeding is an isolated instance of such a movement. Certain operating difficulties involved in the transportation between those points are pointed out. There is a 1.97-percent ruling grade for 23 miles in one direction and a max |