Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

Carrier's Responsibility: When shipper's routing was incomplete, it was
carrier's duty to route shipment over lowest-rated reasonable route consistent
with routing instructions, or, if latter were ambiguous, to obtain further instruc-
tions. Greenspan Bros., Inc., v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co., 301 (302).

Cheapest Available Route: See CARRIER'S RESPONSIBILITY under this
heading.

Shipper's Responsibility: 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).

SAFETY APPLIANCES

Considering that petitioner was an important passenger-carrying line between
Chicago, Ill., and St. Louis and Kansas City, Mo., over which freight and pas-
senger trains operate at relatively high speed, and the freedom from accidents
since automatic train-stop apparatus was installed, petition by Alton R. Co., to
vacate order requiring maintenance and operation of safety devices on its line,
denied. Automatic Train-Control Devices, 657.

Signal arrangement provided by Alton R. Co. might result in confusion or
uncertainty because of lack of uniformity in signal indication and to that extent
was open to criticism. Id. (658).

Because of general upward trend in business conditions throughout the whole
country, the favorable affiliations of Alton R. Co., and the apparently fruitful
efforts of that line and other carriers to increase passenger traffic, Commission
did not believe that reduction of traffic or other changes in operating conditions
had been of sufficient magnitude or permanency to warrant discontinuance of
automatic train-stop devices. Id. (660).

Dismantlement and removal, during periods of depression, of automatic train-
stop devices, which admittedly serve a useful purpose, to effect a saving of the
cost of maintenance and operation thereof, would be contrary to sound practice.
Id. (661).

SCHEDULES

It

In General: Statement in tariff, that use of carrier's warehouses would avoid
trucking charges which would be necessary if independent warehouses not having
private sidings were used, was advertising and had no proper place in a tariff.
had no relation to transportation for which carrier exacted charge and should be
canceled. Propriety of Operating Practices-New York Warehousing, 134 (190).
According noncompensatory warehousing charges and rental to some but not
all shippers, directly or through dominated and controlled subsidiaries, violated
sec. 6 (7) of the Interstate Commerce Act and provisions of the Elkins Act. Id.
(200).

Applicability and Interpretation: 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. Sunderland Bros. Co. v. Alton R. Co., 125 (133).

Commodity rate and minimum weight on onions from Asherton and Catarina,
Tex., to Denver and Pueblo, Colo., were inapplicable under an alternative pro-
vision of the tariff when lower charges resulted from application of class rate and
classification minimum. Reparation awarded. American Fruit Growers, Inc.,
v. Asherton & G. Ry. Co., 283 (284).

Commodity rates restricted to apply on vegetables in 32-quart and 48-quart
containers were not applicable on green beans in 28-quart hampers. Applicable
rates were class rates, subject to minimum based on unpublished estimated weight
per package. Reparation awarded. J. Hamburger Co., Inc., v. Atlantic Coast
Line R. Co., 295 (296–297).

Provision in classification under general heading of "Vegetables: Fresh or
Green, See Note 1," which note carried reference to tariff naming specifica-
tions for standard containers, not including 28-quart hampers, did not preclude
application of class rates on green beans in 28-quart hampers, since item under
the general heading applying particularly on beans did not require use of stand-
ard containers. Id. (297).

Route of St. Louis-S. F. Ry., on petroleum products from the southwest to
St. Louis, Mo., was via Springfield and Cuba and not via Chicopee, Mo. There-
fore, Chicopee could not be regarded as intermediate to and in direction of St.
Louis, and latter rates did not apply as maxima to Chicopee. Neely Oil Co. v.
Alton R. Co., 343 (346).

Following 159 I.C.C. 361, fifth-class rates named on "iron or steel rust pre-
venting or removing compounds, n.o.i.b.n." were found applicable on bitumastic
solution from East St. Louis, Ill., to Missouri and Indiana points. Panhandle-
Eastern Pipe Line Co. v. Alton R. Co., 356 (358).

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 classi-
fication, 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.

Tariff of Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry., naming rates from Gary, Ind., to Capitan,
N.Mex., and providing that rates to Deming, N.Mex., named in designated
agency tariff should apply as maxima, was not applicable on shipments moving
over route not provided in Rock Island tariff. R. Hardesty Mfg. Co. v. Colorado
& S. Ry. Co., 437 (438).

Intermediate rule, restricted not to apply at destinations to which "any first-
class rate (local, joint, or through combination rate)" from same origin was
named in any other tariff or tariffs, had no application on candy from Nashville,
Tenn., to Missouri destinations rated second-class when there were through
combination first-class rates constructed of factors published in separate tariffs.
Standard Candy Co. v. Nashville C. & St. L. Ry. Co., 733.

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 unre-
stricted 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).

Combination Rule: See COMBINATION RULE.

Construction: When an article is clearly embraced within a generic commod-
ity 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).

Designations in tariffs, unless specifically defined there, must be given their ordinary commercial meaning. A. Gross & Co. v. Lehigh Valley R. Co., 397 (399).

Departure from: Prepayment of freight charges was not a condition precedent to application of rate named on fresh or green vegetables, n.o.i.b.n., prepaid. Prepayment is for protection of carriers and may be waived by them. J. Hamburger Co., Inc., v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co., 295 (297).

Intermediate Rule: See LONG AND SHORT HAUL.

Publication: See PUBLICATION.

Restricted Rates: See RESTRICTED RATES.
Switching: See SWITCHING.

Transit: See TRANSIT.

SET-OFFS. See COUNTERCLAIMS AND SET-OFFS.

SHORT HAUL. See THROUGH ROUTES (LONG HAUL)
SHORT LINES

New Jersey & N.Y. R., a subsidiary of the Erie R. Co., was not entitled to railway-mail pay as a railroad less than 100 miles in length. While former carrier's reports, accounting records, and tariffs are kept and issued on basis of separate operation, its physical operations and its administrative organization are not separate and distinct from the Erie and its subsidiaries. Railway Mail Pay, 504.

Fourth-section relief granted certain short and weak carriers in southern territory, to meet rates over standard lines, when similar relief had been granted standard lines, subject to circuity and other conditions. Higher rates from and to intermediate points might not exceed by more than 3.5 cents rate from or to the next more distant junction point between the short-and-weak-line carrier and its standard-line connections. Lumber from the South and Southwest, 753 (768).

SOLICITATION

Solicitation of goods for warehousing is an important activity in that business. Carriers use their active and efficient traffic departments for soliciting business, and private warehousemen with their smaller forces cannot compete in that respect. Propriety of Operating Practices-New York Warehousing, 134 (190). Carriers are under no obligation to place warehousing charges on a basis which will insure a profit to private warehouses, but are bound to comply with the law even though such compliance necessitates changes in rates and practices designed to attract traffic to their facilities. Id. (200).

SPECIAL DOCKET

Special-docket orders are based on agreed statements of facts, and cannot be considered as precedents in formal proceedings. Phoenix Utility Co. v. Abilene & S. Ry. Co., 350 (351-352).

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).

SPORADIC SHIPMENTS

Shippers are entitled to reasonable rates, and excessive rates cannot be con-
doned merely because movements thereunder are infrequent. Arizona Seed &
Floral Co. v. Atchison, T. & S. F. Ry. Co., 208 (209).

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).

Where origins were not points of manufacture or distribution and shipments
therefrom were sporadic, rates for the future were relatively unimportant and
were not prescribed. Montana-Dakota Power Co. v. Chicago & N. W. Ry. Co.,
557 (565).

STARE DECISIS

Special-docket orders are based on agreed statements of facts, and cannot be
considered as precedents in formal proceedings. Phoenix Utility Co. v. Abilene &
S. Ry. Co., 350 (351-352).

It is doubtful whether decisions in prior cases may properly be a source of
principles governing divisions. They are rather to be sought in the statute
empowering Commission to fix divisions. Commission has at all times asserted
its duty to be to consider each divisional controversy strictly on its merits without
regard to any fixed or general standard. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. v. Arcade
& A. R. Corp. 375 (378).

Findings that under special circumstances Commission would not hold jointly
and severally liable carriers participating in hauls for which unreasonable com-
bination rate was charged, but would determine extent to which each factor was
unreasonable, did not establish a settled and inviolate rule. Buckeye Cotton
Oil Co. v. Illinois Central R. Co., 706.

STATE RATES. See INTRASTATE COMMERCE
STIPULATIONS

Statistical data from Commission's files to supplement original record was
considered as evidence, by stipulation of counsel. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. v.
Arcade & A. R. Corp., 375.

STORAGE

Lower storage rates at New York for west-bound than for east-bound freight
could not be justified by difference in service or service costs. Propriety of
Operating Practices-New York Warehousing, 134 (142).

Term "transportation" as used in sec. 1 (3) includes the receipt, delivery,
elevation, and transfer in transit, ventilation, refrigeration or icing, storage, and
handling of property transported. Under sec. 1 (4) it is made the duty of com-
mon carriers subject to the Act engaged in transportation of property to provide
and furnish such transportation upon reasonable request therefor. Storage is
clearly within service required of carriers but extends only to that storage which
is necessarily incidental to transporting such property. To be incidental it
must be preliminary either to immediate transportation or immediate removal.
Id. (194).

Much of the storage service performed by carriers at the Port of New York
was not such as carriers were required by the Act to furnish. Id. (195).

Storage in transit permits the stopping of goods at an intermediate point en
route and the reshipping therefrom to final destination at the through rate
instead of the higher combination of local rates to and from the transit point,
which would obtain if the transit privilege was not granted. Id. (196).

Where stored freight could be sold by the owner locally, removed by trucks or other means, withdrawn from consumption at any time or in any quantity by means convenient to owner, and took the same storage rate even if it remained beyond the transit limit, it partook of the nature of commercial storage and was not properly in-transit storage. Designation as in-transit storage in carriers' tariffs did not invest service with characteristics of in-transit storage. Id. (196). A carrier engaged in transporting commodities in interstate commerce has not the power to furnish directly or indirectly storage or warehousing facilities not within its common-carrier duty and to act as a private or commercial warehouseman when the amounts received from such storage and transportation are not sufficient to pay the cost thereof without a concession from published freight rates. Charges must be put on a basis which, entirely independent of freight rates, will reimburse carriers for the full costs of such services. Id. (201).

Warehousing and storage practices, charges collected, and allowances made in connection therewith at New York, found to dissipate carriers' funds and revenues, not to conform with efficient and economical management as contemplated by the Act, and not to be in public interest. Carriers admonished to take corrective measures and carriers serving other ports admonished to adjust their charges and practices to conform with principles announced. Id. (202). SUBNORMAL RATES

Low commodity rates on cotton piece goods from the South to the river crossings, as well as joint commodity rates from southern to central territory, were depressed to encourage manufacturers to meet New England competition and thus supply the southern carriers with traffic which otherwise would not have moved. Such rates from the South, even if lower than need be, were not established as standards of reasonableness. Baker-Lockwood Mfg. Co. v. Alabama G. S. R. Co., 401 (406–407). SUBSIDIARIES

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. Propriety of Operating Practices-New York Warehousing, 134 (199).

According noncompensatory warehousing charges and rental to some but not all shippers, directly or through dominated and controlled subsidiaries, violated sec. 6 (7) of the Interstate Commerce Act and provisions of the Elkins Act. Id. (200). SUCCESSORS

Informal complaint named as complainant firm represented by administratrix of its owner. Prior to filing of formal complaint administratrix was discharged, but sought reparation therein as successor to the rights and interests of her husband. Evidence found sufficient to support award of reparation to claimant. Anderson Oil Co. v. Atchison, T. & S. F. Ry. Co., 525 (529).

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. Id. (530). SUSPENSION. See INVESTIGATION AND SUSPENSION

SWITCHING

In General: Switching carrier was merely agent of the line-haul carrier when latter held the waybill, paid the loading and unloading charges on livestock on which it received the line haul, and had constructive custody and possession of, and was responsible for, the shipment until it had been delivered or sent on. St. Louis Live Stock Exc. v. Alton R. Co., 73 (92).

« AnteriorContinuar »