Containers: See CONTAINERS. Description: See COMMODITIES (DESCRIPTION). Exceptions: See also SCHEDULES (APPLICABILITY AND INTERPRETATION). Although Commission stated in southwestern revision that class and commodity rates prescribed therein would make unnecessary further maintenance of classification exceptions, it likewise cautioned that the report should not be construed as authority to cancel exceptions on commodities not specifically discussed, unless reasonable rates were provided. Armour & Co. v. Chicago, St. P., M. & O. Ry. Co., 305 (306). Less than Carload: See LESS THAN CARLOAD. Minimum Weights: See MINIMUM WEIGHTS. Penalty Rule: See PENALTY RULE. Schedules: See SCHEDULES. Two-for-One Rule: See MINIMUM WEIGHTS (CARRIER'S CONVENIENCE RULE). Weight: See MINIMUM WEIGHTS. CLASS RATES. See also COMMODITY RATES In General: When class rates are charged on isolated shipments and it is not shown that the commodity is improperly classified or that the class rate is unreasonable, there is no proper basis for reparation. Selby Shoe Co. v. Baltimore & O. R. Co., 275 (276). Commodity Rates, Relationship: While not designed primarily as basis for commodity rates generally, class-rate scale prescribed in 172 I.C.C. 306 afforded an underlying guide for construction of rates on sugar from San Francisco, Calif., to Montana points. That scale gave better effects than scale prescribed in 113 I.C.C. 52 to the principle that as distance increases ton-mile earnings should decrease. Board of Railroad Commrs., Montana v. Bay Transport Co., 721 (723). COMBINATION RATES. See also COMBINATION RULE. In proceeding involving proposed cancelation of joint rates leaving higher combination rates to apply, Commission has authority under sec. 1, to find the higher combination rates unreasonable and to prescribe lower through rates, although not necessarily joint through rates. Routing Grain and Grain Products via Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry. 117 (119). Tariff circular rule 55 (c) did not apply when basing point could be reached only over illogical and unnatural route. Crane Enamelware Co. v. Baltimore & O. R. Co., 267 (269). Combination rate made under tariff circular rule 55 (c), lower than joint rate, did not violate aggregate-of-intermediates provision of sec. 4, but raised an inference that the joint rate was unreasonable. Id. (269). Although factor of combination rate applicable west of Mississippi River had been prescribed by Commission and western lines did not concur in local rate factor east of river, Commission would not determine reasonableness of each factor in the combination rate but awarded reparation against carriers collectively. Buckeye Cotton Oil Co. v. Illinois Central R. Co., 706. Finding that under special circumstances Commission would not hold jointly and severally liable carriers participating in hauls for which unreasonable combination rate was charged, but would determine extent to which each factor was unreasonable, did not establish a settled and inviolate rule. Id. (706). Burden was on applicant for fourth-section relief to sho from competitive points were depressed rates not s made to meet the competition of other routes, and it proposed to maintain from intermediate points v from the South and Southwest, 753 (769). CANADA. See ADJACENT FOREIGN COUNT CARLOAD RATES Although exceptions are numerous, less-than-carload ratings is two classe, Ry. Co., 673 (676). CAR-RENTAL CHARGES Following findings in 196 I ́ cars in transportation of pe', e. ES rate would o and from the eness of the joint ne combination had Johnson-Battle Lbr. combination rate although amelware Co. v. Baltimore & meaning of sec. 4, is the sum of Id. (269). signated as greensand, consisting principally of beeper and educonite and its finished product which, while retaining appearance Furnishing: I' charges for usir suit his ship scribed on capacity that i' app' as greensand zeolites or pure glauconite and sold under trade loversand, were each found to be sand entitled to commodity rate named o sand without any restriction other than as to type of equipment. Hunger fort & Terry, Inc., e Pennsylvania R. Co., 65 (67). to apply rate on all sands embraced in the generic term "sand." Id. (67-68). When commodity rate on sand was originally restricted to particular kinds of sand, a subsequent modification removing the restriction indicated an intention When an article is clearly embraced within a generic commodity description closes a contrary intention, the commodity rate is applicable even though the attached to a commodity rate, and neither the tariff nor the classification dis classification description is more specific. Id. (68). assif commodity tariff description is to remove an article from the classification, such description must be so specific that there can be no question that it includes the article separately designated in the classification. Sunderland Bros. Co. v. Alton R. Co., 125 (131). Commodity rates on building stone did not apply to slate slabs, inasmuch as separate classification descriptions of stone and slate had long been maintained, commodity tariffs were governed by the classification, and stone and slate had distinct commercial meanings. Class rates on slate found applicable. Id. (133). Fifth-class rates on commercial stearic acid from Newark, N. J., to official territory, found inapplicable. While stearic acid was rated fifth-class in the classification, exception governing class rate provided that sixth-class rates applied stearine, which included commercial stearic acid. A. Gross & Co. v. Lehigh Valley R. Co., 397. on Designations in tariffs, unless specifically defined there, must be given their ordinary commercial meaning. Id. (399). COMMODITY RATES. See also CLASS RATES. Class-Rates Superseded: When an article is clearly embraced within a generic commodity description attached to a commodity rate, and neither the tariff nor the classification discloses a contrary intention, the commodity rate is applicable even though the classification description is more specific. Hungerford & Terry, Inc., v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 65 (68). Rule that specific description takes precedence over general description had no application where one rate was a commodity rate and the other a class rate. Id. (68). INDEX DIGEST RPRETATION. commodity 'assification is a part of commodity tariffs to the extent that the latter are 'hereby. Accordingly, if a commodity tariff description is to remove om the classification, such description must be so specific that there tion that it includes the article separately designated in the classirland Bros. Co. v. Alton R. Co., 125 (131). es on building stone did not apply to slate slabs, inasmuch as on descriptions of stone and slate had long been maintained, re governed by the classification, and stone and slate had anings. Class rates on slate found applicable. Id. (133). MODITIES (DESCRIPTION). ommodity rate applicable to less-than-carload traffic .e from the usual practice and should not be required snowing of compelling reasons. Rea-Patterson Milling Co. .. R. Co., 633 (634). CARRIERS le activities not within and not affecting railroad's duty as a common carrier are not within the Commission's jurisdiction, where the performance of such services is so related to performance of common-carrier duties and is of such character as to create a violation of the Act, the Commission is vested with ample authority. Propriety of Operating Practices-New York Warehousing, 134 (195). The function and jurisdiction of the Commission is regulation of commerce and not of railroads, except insofar as they are instruments of commerce. The application of the Act and jurisdiction of Commission cannot be limited or expanded by provisions of carrier's charter. The Commission does not have jurisdiction to determine whether carrier's action is ultra vires and cannot require a carrier to cease engaging in a business or activity not within its duty as a common carrier of interstate or foreign commerce, since there is no statute conferring such authority upon it. If such power exists it must rest with courts or public bodies other than the Commission. Id. (195). COMPENSATION Section 3 (4) provides that compensation for use of terminals fixed as just and reasonable shall be "ascertained on the principle controlling compensation in condemnation cases.' Measure of damages in condemnation proceeding is the difference between value of the property before and after the taking. The question is what the owner has lost, not what the taker has gained. MissouriK.-T. R. Co. v. Kansas City Term. Ry. Co., 4 (6). To all intents and purposes carrier acquiring use of another carrier's terminal becomes a tenant and the just and reasonable compensation required is in effect a rental. Id. (8). Just and reasonable compensation for use by one carrier of another's terminal facilities must include a reasonable return on fair value of the portion covered by the use. Such rate on fair value of terminal facilities of the Kansas City Term. Ry. Co., of which the Missouri-K.-T. R. Co., acquired right to use, determined to be 6 percent. Id. (9, 12). Just and reasonable basis for determination of the portion of the interest charge to be imposed on carrier having use of another carrier's terminal facilities was the numerical basis or division among number of carriers using the facilities. Proportion of use as a basis finds no support in the principles governing compensation in condemnation cases. Id. (11). When under rule 55 (c) of Tariff Circular 20 lower combination rate would have applied in absence of a joint rate without actual movement to and from the basing point, its existence raised a presumption of unreasonableness of the joint rate which was rebutted to the extent that rates higher than the combination had been approved for general application in that territory. Johnson-Battle Lbr. Co. v. Seaboard Air Line Ry. Co., 796 (797). COMBINATION RULE. See also COMBINATION RATES Combination rule was applicable in constructing combination rate although only one factor was subject to the rule. Crane Enamelware Co. v. Baltimore & O. R. Co., 267( 268). The aggregate of intermediate rates within meaning of sec. 4, is the sum of separate rates untreated by combination rule. Id. (269). COMMODITIES Description: Commodity designated as greensand, consisting principally of quartz and glauconite, and its finished product which, while retaining appearance of sand, was known as greensand zeolites or pure glauconite and sold under trade name Inversand, were each found to be sand entitled to commodity rate named on sand without any restriction other than as to type of equipment. ford & Terry, Inc., v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 65 (67). Hunger When commodity rate on sand was originally restricted to particular kinds of sand, a subsequent modification removing the restriction indicated an intention to apply rate on all sands embraced in the generic term "sand." Id. (67-68). When an article is clearly embraced within a generic commodity description attached to a commodity rate, and neither the tariff nor the classification discloses a contrary intention, the commodity rate is applicable even though the classification description is more specific. Id. (68). If a commodity tariff description is to remove an article from the classification, such description must be so specific that there can be no question that it includes the article separately designated in the classification. Sunderland Bros. Co. r. Alton R. Co., 125 (131). Commodity rates on building stone did not apply to slate slabs, inasmuch as separate classification descriptions of stone and slate had long been maintained, commodity tariffs were governed by the classification, and stone and slate had distinct commercial meanings. Class rates on slate found applicable. Id. (133). Fifth-class rates on commercial stearic acid from Newark, N. J., to official territory, found inapplicable. While stearic acid was rated fifth-class in the classification, exception governing class rate provided that sixth-class rates applied on stearine, which included commercial stearic acid. A. Gross & Co. v. Lehigh Valley R. Co., 397. Designations in tariffs, unless specifically defined there, must be given their ordinary commercial meaning. Id. (399). COMMODITY RATES. See also CLASS RATES. Class-Rates Superseded: When an article is clearly embraced within a generic commodity description attached to a commodity rate, and neither the tariff nor the classification discloses a contrary intention, the commodity rate is applicable even though the classification description is more specific. Hungerford & Terry, Inc., v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 65 (68). Rule that specific description takes precedence over general description had no application where one rate was a commodity rate and the other a class rate. Id. (68). The classification is a part of commodity tariffs to the extent that the latter are governed thereby. Accordingly, if a commodity tariff description is to remove an article from the classification, such description must be so specific that there can be no question that it includes the article separately designated in the classification. Sunderland Bros. Co. v. Alton R. Co., 125 (131). Commodity rates on building stone did not apply to slate slabs, inasmuch as separate classification descriptions of stone and slate had long been maintained, commodity tariffs were governed by the classification, and stone and slate had distinct commercial meanings. Class rates on slate found applicable. Id. (133). Description: See COMMODITIES (DESCRIPTION). Less than Carload: Commodity rate applicable to less-than-carload traffic is a pronounced departure from the usual practice and should not be required except upon a clear showing of compelling reasons. Rea-Patterson Milling Co. v. Missouri Pac. R. Co., 633 (634). COMMON CARRIERS While activities not within and not affecting railroad's duty as a common carrier are not within the Commission's jurisdiction, where the performance of such services is so related to performance of common-carrier duties and is of such character as to create a violation of the Act, the Commission is vested with ample authority. Propriety of Operating Practices-New York Warehousing, 134 (195). The function and jurisdiction of the Commission is regulation of commerce and not of railroads, except insofar as they are instruments of commerce. The application of the Act and jurisdiction of Commission cannot be limited or expanded by provisions of carrier's charter. The Commission does not have jurisdiction to determine whether carrier's action is ultra vires and cannot require a carrier to cease engaging in a business or activity not within its duty as a common carrier of interstate or foreign commerce, since there is no statute conferring such authority upon it. If such power exists it must rest with courts or public bodies other than the Commission. Id. (195). COMPENSATION Section 3 (4) provides that compensation for use of terminals fixed as just and reasonable shall be "ascertained on the principle controlling compensation in condemnation cases." Measure of damages in condemnation proceeding is the difference between value of the property before and after the taking. The question is what the owner has lost, not what the taker has gained. MissouriK.-T. R. Co. v. Kansas City Term. Ry. Co., 4 (6). To all intents and purposes carrier acquiring use of another carrier's terminal becomes a tenant and the just and reasonable compensation required is in effect a rental. Id. (8). Just and reasonable compensation for use by one carrier of another's terminal facilities must include a reasonable return on fair value of the portion covered by the use. Such rate on fair value of terminal facilities of the Kansas City Term. Ry. Co., of which the Missouri-K.-T. R. Co., acquired right to use, determined to be 6 percent. Id. (9, 12). Just and reasonable basis for determination of the portion of the interest charge to be imposed on carrier having use of another carrier's terminal facilities was the numerical basis or division among number of carriers using the facilities. Proportion of use as a basis finds no support in the principles governing compensation in condemnation cases. Id. (11). |