175 Reporter's Statement of the Case Tenn.; thence via Tennessee Central R. R. to Harriman, This route included no land-aided line beyond Cairo. In certain instances plaintiff, however, in submitting its bills to defendant made some deductions south of Cairo for landgrant equalization, but less in amount than applied by the defendant in payment of plaintiff's bills. These particular deductions were inadvertently made by plaintiff's clerks and are not representative of plaintiff's practice. 8. On shipments covered by items 121, 141, 142, and 143 of Exhibit No. 4 to the petition, defendant, for the purpose of computing rates, used its route from Cairo as follows: Mobile & Ohio R. R. to Meridian, Miss.; thence via On all other shipments listed in Exhibit No. 4 to the petition defendant used for computation of freight rate a route from Cairo as follows: Mobile & Ohio R. R. to Meridian; thence via Alabama Great Southern R. R. to Birmingham; thence via Louisville & Nashville R. R. to Calera, Ala.; thence via plaintiff's line. The routes so used by defendant included certain landaided mileage of the Mobile & Ohio R. R. between Cairo and Meridian, of the Alabama Great Southern R. R. between Meridian and Chattanooga, of the Louisville & Nashville R. R. between Birmingham and Montgomery, of the Central of Georgia Ry. between Montgomery and Columbus, and of the Southern Ry. between Calera, Ala., and Spartanburg, S. C. The shipments on item 119 of Exhibit No. 4 to the petition, South St. Paul, Minn., to St. Matthews, S. C., on items 21 and 22 from Sioux City, Ia., to Asheville, N. C., on item 69, South St. Paul to Asheville and on item 9, South St. Paul to Ninety Six, S. C., moved via Cairo, Ill. All other shipments moved via junctions other than Cairo, such as Cininnati or Elkhorn City. 9. The following table shows approximately, in respect to the various items of Exhibit No. 4 to the petition, (a) the Reporter's Statement of the Case 100 C. Cls. number of miles via route of actual movement, (b) the mileage via plaintiff's rate-making route, (c) the mileage via defendant's rate-making route, and (d) the mileage by which (c) exceeds (a). There is no satisfactory proof as to excess mileage, if any, with respect to Item No. 134 of Exhibit No. 4 to the petition, on which plaintiff claims $63.42, Item No. 105, $77.40, and Item No. 120, $59.41, and these items are not included in the tabulation. Reporter's Statement of the Case 100 C. Cls. 10. All the shipments covered by Exhibit No. 4 to the petition consisted of livestock, moved from drought-stricken areas to grazing lands in the South where it was possible for them to subsist. The number of cars in each shipment ranged from 1 to 19, with an average of 5 cars to a shipment. The routes used by defendant for land-grant deduction purposes south of Cairo in computing net freight rates are not used by or for commercial traffic. A map showing the land-grant lines south of Cairo, insofar as herein involved, routes used by plaintiff, routes used by the defendant, and alternative routes used by neither, applicable to the shipments listed in Exhibit No. 4 to the petition, and bearing on its face a legend identifying the various routes, is filed in the case as plaintiff's Exhibit No. 26 and is made part hereof by reference. The routes used by defendant in its calculations would have required, if the livestock had actually moved over them, two or three stops for feed, water, and rest, additional to those required on the route in fact traversed, and a minimum of three additional days in transit. The extra cost of feeding would have had to be borne by the shipper. The livestock was shipped during July, August, and September, at a time of year that is hard on livestock in cattle cars. The carriers' tariff requirements were for 200 pounds of feed per car for cattle at each stop for rest, feed, and water. The cost to defendant would have been in the neighborhood of $2.50 for 200 pounds of hay. There are alternative routes not made use of either by plaintiff or by defendant, that would result in less net freight charges than claimed by plaintiff, and higher net freight charges than conceded by defendant. There is no evidence of any particulars with respect thereto. 11. If the routes used by defendant in calculation of net freight charges on Exhibit No. 4 to the petition are applicable under the Freight Land-grant Equalization Agreement there are due the defendant overpayments made by it to plaintiff on items (not now waived by plaintiff), of the exhibit in certain several amounts as follows: On the same basis there are the following underpayments to plaintiff : The difference is an overpayment to plaintiff of $1,520.68, on items not now waived. The net overpayment by defendant to plaintiff on the items sued on in the first cause of action, including some of those now waived by plaintiff, is $1,618.41 if the route used by defendant is held to be correct under the terms of the equalization agreement. Defendant makes counterclaim for this overpayment. |