Joint rates on watermelons from Florida and Georgia to Jackson and McKenzie, Tenn., in excess of aggregate of intermediates, violated sec. 4, and were unreasonable to that extent, subject to 30 percent of first-class rates as minima. Reparation awarded. Oneal Comm. Co. v. Alabama G. S. R. Co., 662.

Long and Short Haul: Fourth-section relief granted in connection with rates on lumber from the South and Southwest to various destination territories was subject to prescribed circuity limitation and to minimum earnings of not less than 6 mills per ton-mile when short-line route exceeded 160 miles and longer line was not more than 60 percent circuitous. Lumber from the South and Southwest, 753 (774–775).

Prescription by Commission: Rate on gasoline from San Francisco Bay points to Ogden, Utah, voluntarily reduced to avert diversion of traffic to trucks, was lower than necessary to retain the traffic, would disrupt the rate structure in Mountain-Pacific territory, impairing carriers' revenues and their ability to provide adequate transportation service, and violated secs. 1 (5) and 15a (2) of the Act. Minimum rate prescribed. Gasoline from San Francisco Bay Points to Ogden, Utah, 683 (699).

MINIMUM WEIGHTS. See also WEIGHTS AND WEIGHING

In General: Charges on common brick based on marked capacities of cars which could not be loaded to such capacities were unreasonable. Minimum weight prescribed on common brick from Goldsboro, N.C., to Virginia points based on marked capacity, but not less than 60,000 pounds, subject to actual weight if car is loaded to full visible capacity. Borden Brick & Tile Co. v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co., 232 (235).

Minimum of 30,000 pounds applicable in connection with commodity rates on onions from Texas to Colorado points was not unreasonable compared with classification minimum of 24,000 pounds. American Fruit Growers, Inc, v. Asherton & G. Ry. Co., 283.

Basis prescribed for determining minimum weight to be applied on shipments of brick from Weldon, N.C., to Virginia, under finding in 168 I.C.C. 279 awarding reparation because of unreasonable rates, in those instances where car was loaded to full visible, but not marked, capacity or where carrier furnished larger car than ordered. Grant v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co., 333.

Minimum weight is a necessary part of a carload rate and the Commission may properly consider the minimum as well as the rate, whether the minimum is directly assailed or not. Id. (334).

Commission was not precluded under 284 U.S. 370 from modifying original findings so as to fix the minimum which should govern in determining reparation. Id. (334).

Alternative Minima and Rates: See ALTERNATIVE RATES.

Carrier's Convenience Rule: It is not equitable or proper to require a shipper to pay additional charges for using a car of different dimensions or capacities from that which would suit his shipment, or forego entirely his desire to ship. Minimum weight prescribed on common brick from Weldon, N.C., to Virginia points based on marked capacity of car, subject to rule that if carrier furnished larger car than ordered, capacity of car ordered should apply. Borden Brick & Tile Co. v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co., 232 (235).

Failure to publish two-for-one rule in connection with varying rates on livestock, dependent on the size of cars used, resulted in unreasonable charges on cattle from Medford, Oreg., to Bay Point, Calif. Reparation awarded. Dutra v. Southern Pac. Co., 353 (354).

Proposed rule governing minimum weight on common brick in the South was unreasonable in that it permitted carriers, at their convenience and in disregard of shippers' requirements, to furnish equipment which might be available while denying shippers privilege of demanding such equipment, and was also discriminatory in that it would permit carrier to accord more favorable treatment to one shipper than to another similarly circumstanced. Carload Minimum Weight on Brick in the South, 371 (374).

Commercial Considerations: Consuming public is largely dependent upon the small dealer as source of supply for staple building needs, and public interest is best served by freight rates and minimum weights which make it possible and profitable for the small dealer to carry a complete stock of standard building materials. Gypsum Assn. v. Atchison, T. & S. F. Ry. Co., 47 (59).

Proposed increased minimum weight on common brick in the South to basis of 80,000 pounds, found not justified. Due to commercial conditions beyond control of manufacturers a substantial portion of the traffic moved in quantities that could be readily loaded in equipment of 60,000 pounds marked capacity. Minimum prescribed based on marked capacity of car, subject to 60,000 pounds and other provisos. Carload Minimum Weight on Brick in the South, 371 (373-374).

Commodities: Minimum weights were involved or fixed in the following

cases:

Brick, common: Borden Brick & Tile Co. v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co., 232; Grant v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co., 333.

Fertilizer and materials: Eastern Fertilizer Cases, 483.

Pipe coating: Phoenix Utility Co. v. Abilene & S. Ry. Co., 350.

Pipe, wrought-iron: Standard Pipe Line Co., Inc., v. Atchison, T. & S. F. Ry. Co., 522.

Plaster board: Gypsum Assn. v. Atchison, T. & S. F. Ry. Co., 47 (63). Sheep, feeder: Cudahy Farm Operating Co. v. Oregon Short Line R. Co., 413. Sugar: Board of Railroad Commrs., Montana v. Bay Transport Co., 721. Two for One: See CARRIER'S CONVENIENCE RULE under this heading. MISQUOTATION. See QUOTATION OF RATES

MISROUTING

Shipment routed by complainant over route selected on advice of carrier's agent was not misrouted because a lower rate applied over different route. Portland Bridge Co. v. Oregon-W. R. & Nav. Co., 272 (273).

Shipment from Mount Olive, N.C., to Petersburg, Va., diverted to complainant "Lehigh Private Siding, Perth Amboy”, found misrouted. Diversion instructions construed to require Lehigh Valley R. Co. delivery and carrier making diversion was responsible for not specifying that delivery or obtaining clear instructions. Reparation awarded. Greenspan Bros., Inc., v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co., 301 (302)

MISTAKES. See ERROR

MIXED CARLOADS

In General: A practicable mixed-carload rule for plaster and plaster board was logical and should be required to govern the traffic. The commodities are made from the same principal ingredient, are produced at the same points and plants, compete with each other, and move in the same equipment. Gypsum Assn. v. Atchison, T. & S. F. Ry. Co., 47 (61).

Reasonable method prescribed for determining charges on mixed carloads of plaster and plaster board on basis of carload rates on actual weight of each commodity, subject to highest minimum for any of the articles, any deficit in minimum weight to be charged at plaster-board rate. Id. (62).

Charges on mixed carloads of plaster and plaster products from Fort Dodge, Iowa, Southard, Okla., and Sweetwater, Tex., to western territory, found unduly prejudicial to fiber wall board from Lockport, N. Y., to the extent that they might be lower than carload rate on actual weight of each commodity, subject to highest minimum for any of the articles, any deficit in minimum weight to be charged at rate on the highest rated article. Findings in 157 I.C.C. 586, modified. Id. (63). Shipments of sweetclover seed in mixed carloads with other seeds were within scope of findings in 186 I.C.C. 299, awarding reparation on shipments of sweetclover seed, in carloads, when carload rates had been charged on the sweetclover portion. Haley-Neeley Co. v. Ann Arbor R. Co., 331.

MOTOR-TRUCK COMPETITION. See COMPETITION

MULTIPLE LINES. See DIFFERENTIALS IN RATES AND ROUTES
ORDERS

Commission does not regard orders issued under sec. 3 (4) as granting a perpetual right. Its actions should be responsive to changing conditions. MissouriK.-T. R. Co. v. Kansas City Term. Ry. Co., 4 (8).

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)

Commission's orders in special-docket cases must be regarded as formal orders as fully in all respects as orders in formal cases. Such orders are based on provisions of law and of necessity must meet all legal requirements the same as orders in formal proceedings. Tennessee Eastman Corp. v. Louisville & N. R. Co., 639 (640).

Special-docket order requiring carrier to maintain assailed rate for one year precluded Commission, under principle in 284 U.S. 370, from awarding reparation in subsequent formal proceeding in which lower rates were prescribed for the future. Id. (640).

OUT-OF-LINE HAULS

Carriers' refusal to permit milling in transit at Astoria, Oreg., on shipments of grain from points in Idaho, Montana, Oregon, and Washington to Pacific-coast destinations, on basis of the joint rates plus a transit or back-haul charge, while granting transit at other points because of competition, did not result in unreasonable or unduly prejudicial rates. Pillsbury-Astoria Flour Mills Co. v. Great Northern Ry. Co., 642.

Carriers under certain conditions may voluntarily perform back hauls in connection with transit, but the Commission will not ordinarily require them to do so, except to remove unjust discrimination or undue prejudice. Id. (646).

Charges on wheat from Gerald, Ohio, to Pocomoke, Md., and Bangor, Maine, which moved to Detroit where it was graded and forwarded to Loudonville, Ohio, for transit, were applicable on basis of local rate to Detroit and joint through rate beyond. While joint rates from Gerald to Pocomoke and Bangor were unrestricted as to routing, movement via Detroit required a back haul and joint rate did not apply. Ryon Grain Co. v. Detroit, T. & I. R. Co., 750 (751).

Joint through rate, although unrestricted as to routing, did not apply where a back haul was involved, regardless of amount of "circuity" of such back haul. Id. (752).

PARTIES

Where firm named as complainant had no legal entity but was merely the name under which another company conducted a separate business, reparation could not legally be awarded. Mosbacher Motor Co. v. Alton & S. R. Co., 408 (411).

Informal complaint was filed in name of firm operated by copartners one of whom died during pendency. Formal complaint was filed by surviving partner and wife of deceased partner as successor to rights of her husband. In absence of evidence to show succession of wife, petition seeking to have husband's administrator substituted as party complainant, granted. Anderson Oil Co. v. Atchison, T. & S. F. Ry. Co., 525 (530).

PARTNERSHIPS

Informal complaint was filed in name of firm operated by copartners one of whom died during pendency. Formal complaint was filed by surviving partner and wife of deceased partner as successor to rights of her husband. In absence of evidence to show succession of wife, petition seeking to have husband's administrator substituted as party complainant, granted. Anderson Oil Co. v. Atchison, T. & S. F. Ry. Co., 525 (530).

PAYMENT OF CHARGES. See also PREPAYMENT OF CHARGES

Presumption is that consignee shown on paid freight bills paid charges indicated thereon. Anderson Oil Co. v. Atchison, T. & S. F. Ry. Co., 525 (529). PENALTY RULE

Requirements under classification rule 41 for liners of fiber shipping boxes, and penalty provision for violation thereof, were not unreasonable or unduly prejudicial. Southern Kraft Corp. v. Akron, C. & Y. Ry. Co., 587 (597). PLEADINGS

Complaints: See COMPLAINTS.

Issue: See ISSUE.

Parties: See PARTIES.

POLICING

Tariff provision that when articles designated as "Inbound Material" were transited and reshipped from transit points, shippers would be required to present to named inspection bureau the inbound carriers' representative freight bills and shipping directions, in duplicate, bearing shippers' certificate in prescribed form, was a policing provision to be performed by the bureau designated and did not require certificates to be presented to forwarding agent at transit point with each outbound shipment. Parkersburg Rig & Reel Co. v. Chicago & N. W. Ry. Co. 709 (714).

PRACTICES.

See under the various topics. PREFERENCE AND PREJUDICE

In General: When carriers by their tariffs extend their service beyond their legal obligation as common carriers, as, for example, beyond a delivery equivalent to team-track delivery, Commission has ordinarily found that such extra service must be paid for by the shipper in order to avoid preference and prejudice. Propriety of Operating Practices-New York Warehousing, 134 (198).

The fundamental purpose of the Act is to require fair and equal treatment of shippers, "to compel the carriers as a public agent to give equal terms to all", to "cut up by the roots every form of discrimination, favoritism, and inequality", and to "place all shippers upon equal terms." Carriers subject to the Act cannot lawfully accomplish violations of secs. 2 and 3 (1) by resorting to separate corporations which they dominate and direct. Nor can such violations be justified by reason of existing contracts. Id. (199).

Although all shippers were charged same tariff rates, the according of noncompensatory warehousing charges and rental to some shippers and not to all was equivalent to a deduction from transportation charges to some shippers in violation of secs. 2 and 3 (1). Free loading and unloading of carload freight, or payment of allowances therefor, and handling of freight into and out of storage at less than compensatory rates, added to these violations. Id. (199).

Private warehouse companies are "persons" within meaning of secs. 2 and 3 and charges which they are required to pay and treatment accorded them by carriers subject to the Act are subject to the provisions of those sections and of the Elkins Act. Id. (200).

Carrier's Power to Control: If carrier permitting transit at one point is not carrier refusing it elsewhere, it cannot be held responsible for undue prejudice. Participation merely in the joint rates does not make connecting carriers partners, since they can be held jointly and severally responsible for unjust discrimination only if each carrier has participated in some way in that which causes discrimination. St. Louis Live Stock Exc. v. Alton R. Co., 73 (91).

Carriers' refusal to grant milling-in-transit privileges at Astoria, Oreg., on shipments involving back haul, while granting such privileges at other points, was not unduly prejudicial where preferred points had advantage of service by competing lines not serving Astoria. Withdrawal by defendants from joint rates over routes through preferred points would not benefit complainant because rates would still be available over other routes. Pillsbury-Astoria Flour Mills Co. v. Great Northern Ry. Co., 642 (646).

Carriers parties to tariffs publishing estimated weights on broccoli from California and from Texas were found to "effectively participate" in rules, regulations, and practices providing for collection of freight charges on different estimated weights on same size crates to same markets during same season which constituted undue prejudice against the California origins. D'Arrigo Bros. Co. v. Atchison, T. & S. F. Ry. Co., 741.

Car Service: See TRAINS (Supply).

Competition: Rates on hay between points in central and eastern Lower Peninsula of Michigan and western Ohio, on the one hand, and destinations in Wisconsin, Upper Peninsula of Michigan, northern Illinois, and border points in Iowa, and Minnesota, were found not unduly prejudicial because the essential competitive element was absent and the real issue was unreasonableness. Calliari Bros. v. Ann Arbor R. Co., 388 (393).

Damages: Claim for reparation denied when damage was not proved with degree of definiteness required under finding of undue prejudice. S. Smith Coal Co. v. Erie R. Co., 573 (578).

Statement that complainant competed with producers having lower rate and that it was obliged to quote prices based on such lower rate and absorb the difference out of its profits did not constitute definite proof of damage due to undue prejudice. Lone Star Gasoline Co. v. Alton R. Co., 585 (586).

Groups and Group Rates: See GROUPS AND GROUP RATES.
Intrastate: See INTRASTATE COMMERCE.

Localities: Markets to which livestock was consigned or at which through shipments were stopped and sold for local slaughter were destinations of those shipments, although such points might not be considered the destinations or origins of shipments stopped en route through such markets, sold, and reforwarded under transit privilege. Such markets were localities within purview of sec. 3 under interpretation placed thereon in 289 U.S. 627. St. Louis Live Stock Exc. v. Alton R. Co., 73 (80).

Markets: See MARKETS.

Removal: Any order under sec. 3 alone, requiring removal of undue prejudice must afford an alternative. St. Louis Live Stock Exc. v. Alton R. Co., 73 (81). State and Interstate: See INTRASTATE COMMERCE.

Switching: See SWITCHING.

Transit: See TRANSIT.

Weights and Weighing: See WEIGHTS And Weighing.