Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

12 Sup. Ct. 978. Transportation from one point to another in the same state, though passing through another state, is not interstate commerce.-United States v. Lehigh Valley R. Co., 115 Fed. 373; Lehigh Valley R. Co. v. Pennsylvania, 145 U. S. 192, 36 L. Ed. 672, 12 Sup. Ct. 806. Contra, United States v. Delaware, L. & W. R. Co., 152 Fed. 269, citing Hanley v. Kansas City, etc., R. Co., 187 U. S. 617, 47 L. Ed. 333, 23 Sup. Ct. 214; Lord v. Goodall N. & P. Steamship Co., 102 U. S. 541, 26 L. Ed. 224; Pacific Coast S. S. Co. v. Railroad Comrs., 9 Sawy. 253, 18 Fed. 10. Hanley v. R. R., supra, definitely settles the question that such transportation is interstate commerce. Private car companies furnishing their care indiscriminately to carriers subject to Act.-Int. Com. Com. v. Reichmann, 145 Fed. 235.

The test of subjection to the Act is through routing in interstate commerce.-United States v. Wood, 145 Fed. 405, 411. All carriers engaged in transporting interstate freight by a continuous passage are within the regulation of interstate commerce by Congress.-United States v. Colorado and N. W. R. Co., 157 Fed. 321, 85 C. C. A. 27; same-styled case, 157 Fed. 342, 85 C. C. A. 48; Phillips, district judge, dissenting in an able opinion.-Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co. v. United States, 157 Fed. 830, 85 C. C. A. 194.

A water carrier operating entirely within a state but engaged in transporting interstate commerce is subject to regulation by Congress.-The steamer Daniel Ball, 10 Wall, 77 U. S. 557, 19 L. Ed. 999. Exportation begins when goods are committed to a common carrier for transportation beyond the state. Coe v. Errol, 116 U. S. 517, 29 L. Ed. 715, 6 Sup. Ct. 475. A local carrier transporting interstate commerce under through bills of lading is engaged in interstate commerce.Cincinnati, New Orleans & T. P. Ry. Co. v. Int. Com. Com., 162 U. S. 184, 40 L. Ed. 935, 16 Sup. Ct. 700. For Commission decision, see James & Mayer Buggy Co. v. Cincinnati, N. O. & T. P. Ry. Co., 4 I. C. C. 744, 2 I. C. R. 625, 3 id. 682; Circuit Court, 56 Fed. 925; Circuit Court of Appeals, 64 Fed. 981, 13 U. S. App. 730. See also Int. Com. Com. v. Detroit, G. H. & M. Ry. Co., 167 U. S. 633, 42 L. Ed. 306, 17 Sup. Ct. 986, affirming, 74 Fed. 803, 21 C. C. A. 103; Norfolk & W. R. Co. v. Penn., 136 U. S. 114, 34 L. Ed. 394, 10 Sup. Ct. 958; United States

v. Wood, 145 Fed. 405; United States v. New York C. & H. R. Co., 153 Fed. 630, 632. Through transportation without through bills of lading makes interstate commerce subject to the Act.-United States v. Colorado and N. W. R. Co., 157 Fed. 321, and cases cited. Railroads that share in an agreed interstate rate subject to Act.-L. & N. R. Co. v. Behlmer, 175 U. S. 648, 44 L. Ed. 309, 20 Sup. Ct. 209. See same case, 6 I. C. C. 257, 4 I. C. R. 520, 71 Fed. 835, 83 Fed. 898, 28 C. C. A. 229, 42 U. S. App. 581. Mere intention to continue the transportation of an interstate shipment after it reaches its destination to another point in the same state as such destination will not make the last shipment interstate.-Gulf, etc., R. Co. v. Texas, 204 U. S. 403, 51 L. Ed. 540, 27 Sup. Ct. 360. Express companies under the Amendment of June 29, 1906, included.-United States v. Wells Fargo Exp. Co., 161 Fed. 606; American Exp. Co. v. United States, 212 U. S. 522, 53 L. Ed. 635, 29 Sup. Ct. 315.

Notes of Decisions Rendered Since 1909.

"Wholly by Railroad" discussed.-Federal Sugar Refinery Company v. B. & O. R. Co., 17 I. C. C. 40, 46, 20 I. C. C. 200; Opin. of Com. Ct. Baltimore & O. R. Co. v. U. S., 200 Fed. 779, Opinion Com. Court No. 38, page 499. For a related case, see American Sugar Ref. Co. v. Delaware, L. & W. Ry. Co., 200 Fed. 652. Same-styled case, 207 Fed. 733, 125 C. C. A. 251. Commerce Court sustained.-U. S. v. B. & O. R. Co., 231 U. S. 274, 58 L. Ed. 218, 34 Sup. Ct. 75, known as "Sugar Lighterage Case."

The provisions of the Act of June 18, 1910 stated.-Shoemaker v. C. & P. Telephone Co., 20 I. C. C. 614. Section quoted in its application to pipe line.-Re Pipe Lines, 24 I. C. C. 1; order of Int. Com. Com. enjoined.-Prairie Oil & Gas Co. v. United States, 204 Fed. 798, Com. Court Nos. 75 to 80, p. 545; Com. Court reversed in part.-U. S. v. Ohio Oil Co., 234 U. S. 548, 58 L. Ed. 1394, 34 Sup. Ct. 956. State rates not to be used in interstate shipments.-Kanotex Refinery Co. v. A. T. & S. F. R. Co., 34 I. C. C. 271. Applies to rate in Alaska.-Int. Com. Com. v. U. S. ex rel. Humboldt S. S. Co., 224 U. S. 474, 56 L. Ed. 849, 32 Sup. Ct. 556; reversing the Int. Com. Com. in Re Jurisdiction in Alaska,

19 I. C. C. 81, and affirming U. S. ex rel. Humboldt S. S. Co. v. Int. Com. Com., 39 Wash. Law Rep. 386. Jurisdiction over Canadian railroads discussed but not determined.-Rates on High Explosives, 33 I. C. C. 567. May require carriers in United States to cease from concurring in joint rates with Canadian lines.-International Paper Co. v. D. & H. Co., 33 I. C. C. 270. Jurisdiction over Cable Companies.-White v. W. U. Tel. Co., 33 I. C. C. 500. Whether or not a shipment of freight is within the provision of the Act must be determined by "the essential character of the commerce, not its mere accidents."-Tex. & N. O. R. Co. v. Sabine Tram Co., 227 U. S. 111, 129, 130, 57 L. Ed. 442, 449, 33 Sup. Ct. 229, 234, citing, Coe v. Errol, 116 U. S. 517, 29 L. Ed. 715. 6 Sup. Ct. 475; So. Pac. Terminal Co. v. Int. Com. Com., 219 U. S. 498, 55 L. Ed. 310, 31 Sup. Ct. 279; Railroad Com. of Ohio v. Worthington, 225 U. S. 101, 56 L. Ed. 1004, 32 Sup. Ct. 653; State v. Southern Kan. Ry. Co., 49 S. W. 252; State v. International & Gt. Nor, R. Co., 71 S. W. 994; Gulf, C. & S. F. Ry. Co. v. Fort Grain Co., 72 S. W. 419; Same v. Same, 73 S. W. 845, and distinguished in Gulf C. & S. F. Ry. Co. v. Texas, 204 U. S. 403, 51 L. Ed. 540, 27 Sup. Ct. 360. But see Chicago M. & St. P. R. Co. v. Iowa, 233 U. S. 334, 58 L. Ed. 988, 34 Sup. Ct. 592.

Notes of Decisions Rendered Since 1915.

See conflict between state and interstate, Sec. 44, ante. Conflict of authority with Canada avoided.-Aetna Powder Co. v. W. R. Co., 39 I. C. C. 199. That part of a through movement to or from Canada within the United States is subject to regulation held in Fairmont Creamery Co. v. Adams Ex. Co., 43 I. C. C. 724. Transportation from wharf track to team track within the Act.-United States v. Ill. C. R. Co., 230 Fed. 940. Intent as to shipment and not form of bill of lading controls.-McFadden v. A. G. S. R. Co., 241 Fed. 562, 154 C. C. A. 338. While natural gas is excluded, piping natural gas to another state is interstate commerce-Landon v. Public U. Com. 234 Fed. 152, 245 Fed, 950; reversed, holding not interstate commerce, Public Util. Com. v. Landon, 249 U. S. 236. State and interstate rates.-Am. Ex. Co. v. So. Dak., 244 U. S. 617, 61 L. Ed. 1352, 37 Sup. Ct. 656; Ill.

C. R. Co. v. Public Utilities Ill., 245 U. S. 493, 62 L. Ed. 425, 38 Sup. Ct. 170; Producers Trans. Co. v. Railroad Com., 251 U. S. 228, 64 L. Ed. 239, 40 Sup. Ct. 131. During federal control, states could not regulate state rates.-Dakota Cent. Telephone Co. v. North Dakota, 250 U. S. 163, 63 L. Ed. 910, 39 Sup. Ct. 507, P. U. R. 1919, p. 717, 4 A. L. R. 1623; Northern Pac. R. Co. v. North Dakota, 250 U. S. 135, 63 L. Ed. 897, 39 Sup. Ct. 505, P. U. R. 1919D. 705; Public Service Commission v. New England Tel. & Tel. Co., 232 Mass. 465, 122 N. E. 567, P. U. R. 1919D. 49, 4 A. L. R. 1662, 250 U. S. 195, 63 L. Ed. 934, 39 Sup. Ct. 511; Burleson v. Dempcy 250 U. S. 191, 63 L. Ed. 929, 39 Sup. Ct. 511; Southwestern Tel. Co. v. Houston, 256 Fed. 690.

Notes of Decisions Rendered Since 1920.

Oil company transporting its own oil not within purview of Act.-Tidewater Pipe Co. v. Board of Review, 311 Ill. 375, 143 N. E. 87. Interstate transportation by motor vehicles not within Act, though Congress has right to occupy field.— Interstate Transit Co. v. Derr, 228 Pac. 624, 71 Mont. 222. Inclusion of telegraph companies within terms of Act did not abrogate or modify scope of Post Roads Act under which government telegraph messages were to be sent at special rate.-U. S. Shipping Board Emergency Fleet Corp. v. West. Union Tel. Co., 275 U. S. 415, 72 L. Ed. 345, 48 Sup. Ct. 198. Question whether commerce is interstate or intrastate to be determined by essential character of the commerce and not by billing or forms of contract.-A. C. L. R. R. Co. v. Standard Oil Co., 275 U. S. 257, 72 L. Ed. 270, 48 Sup. Ct. 107. Commission has no jurisdiction to require establishment joint. rates for future application between point in United States and foreign country.-San Diego Chamber of Commerce v.A. & V. Ry. Co., 102 I. C. C. 27. But where shipments move under unreasonable rates from adjacent foreign country, reparation may be awarded against participating American lines. Lewis-Simas-Jones Co. v. S. P. Co., 102 I. C. C. 245. See also American Splint Corp. v. C. P. Ry. Co., 88 I. C. C. 221. Water carrier receiving goods from rail carrier and issuing bill of lading to shipper of goods by water, and paying the rail freight, not taking part in transportation with rail carriers under "common arrangement for a continuous car

riage or shipment."-U. S. v. Munson S. S. Line (D. C. Md. 1929), 33 Fed. (2d) 211.

The provisions of this Act shall not apply:

(a) To the transportation of passengers or property, or to the receiving, delivering, storage or handling of property, wholly within one state and not shipped to or from a foreign country from or to any place in the United States as aforesaid;

(b) To the transportation of intelligence by wire or wireless wholly within one state and not transmitted to or from a foreign country from or to any place in the United States as aforesaid;

Subdivisions (a) and (b) of paragraph (2) of Section 1 of Interstate Commerce Act; Sec. 400, Transportation Act, 1920. The former section read: Provided, however, That the provisions of this Act shall not apply to the transportation of passengers or property, or to the receiving, delivering, storage, or handling of property wholly within one state and not shipped to or from a foreign country from or to any state or territory as aforsaid, nor shall they apply to the transmission of messages by telephone, telegraph, or cable wholly within one state and not transmitted to or from a foreign country from or to any state or territory as aforesaid.

Proviso as amended by Act June 18, 1910.

The proviso to paragraph (1), Section 1, as originally enacted, read:

Provided, however, that the provisions of this Act shall not apply to the transportation of passengers or property, or to the receiving, delivering, storage, or handling of property wholly within one state and not shipped to or from a foreign country from or to any state as aforesaid. For annotations, see next preceding section.

Notes of Decisions Rendered Since 1909.

This proviso does not prevent granting relief under Sec. 3 of Act, although the discrimination is caused by a statemade intrastate rate.-Railroad Com. of La. v. St. L. S. W. Ry. Co. (Shreveport case), 23 I. C. C. 31; order sustained,

« AnteriorContinuar »