carriers to make such reports. U. S. v.
Union S. & T. Co., 192 Fed. 330, 343.
(d) Under section 20 of the Act au-
thorizing the Commission to require re-
ports from owners of railroads, a lessor
of a railroad is an owner within the
meaning of the provision. U. S. v. Union
S. & T. Co., 192 Fed. 330, 340.
See Evidence, V.
See Discrimination, 6; Facilities and
(a) Rates on coal which are applica-
ble only to shipments of certain consign-
ors or consignees, condemned. In Re
Restricted Rates, 20 I. C. C. 426.
RESTRICTED RATES, I (b) ROUTING AND MISROUTING.
(b) A tariff providing for reduced
rates on coal used for steam purposes or
that the carrier will refund parts of the
regular tariff charges on presentation of
evidence that the coal was so used is im-
proper and unlawful, because the carrier
has no right to attempt to dictate the
uses to which commodities transported
by it shall be put in order to enjoy a
transportation rate. In Re Restricted
Rates, 20 I. C. C. 426, 427.
(c) Where the stock in one railway
company is owned by another railway
company, but both maintain separate or-
ganizations and report separately to
Commission, they may not carry freight
free for each other. In Re Restricte:!
Rates, 20 I. C. C. 426, 427.
(d) A lease by a carrier of trackage
rights over a connecting line to a quarry
for hauling ballast for use on its own
line cannot be sanctioned, as such a
course would result in discrimination. In
Re Restricted Rates, 20 I. C. C. 426, 428.
(ef) A carrier may not lawfully trans-
port free or at reduced rates materials
for building, or repairs on, a refrigera-
tion plant built under contract with the
carrier, but which also engages in com-
mercial ice business. In Re Restricted
Rates, 20 I. C. C. 426, 428.
(g) The Commission would not sanc-
tion an .arrangement for a lease by a
carrier of trackage right over a connect-
ing line to quarry for the purpose of haul
ing from that quarry with its own crew
and equipment ballast for use on its line,
such arrangement being regarded as de-
vice to evade lawful rates. In Re Re-
stricted Rates, 20 I. C. C. 42G, 428.
(h) Persons and commodities trans-
ported for use in serving others than pas-
sengers and employes may not lawfully
be carried except under regular tariff
rates. In Re Restricted Rates, 20 I. C. C.
(i) It is unjustly discriminatory
against dealers on its line for an inter-
state carrier to operate a commissary
car. In Re Restricted Rates, 20 I. C. C.
(j) Discrimination would necessarily
result from a lease by an interstate car-
rier of the trackage rights over connect-
ing line to a quarry for the purpose of
hauling with its own crew ballast for use
on its line. In Re Restricted Rates 20
I. C. C. 426, 428.
(k) A carrier has the unquestioned
right to haul its own property on its own
rails. In Re Restricted Rates, 20 I. C. C.
(1) The local rate to a junction point
should be the same for all shippers to
that point, and the through charge on
shipments going beyond that junction
should be alike for all shippers to the
same destination. In Re Restricted
Rates, 20 I. C. C. 426, 434.
(m) Restricting rates to a certain con-
signee or when commodity is put to a
particular use constitutes unjust dis-
crimination. In Re Restricted Rates, 20
I. C. C. 426, 437.
(n) Tariffs which contain rates ap-
plicable only to the shipment of certain
consignees, or when a commodity is put
to a particular use and the rates which
are so restricted to the use of certain
shippers and not open to all shippers
alike are in violation of section 2 of the
Act, and unjust discrimination in viola-
tion of section 3 of the Act, and therefore
unlawful. In Re Restricted Rates, 20
I. C. C. 426, 437.
See Reduced Rates, 5.
See Evidence, 36.
ROUTING AND MISROUTING.
I. CONTROL AND REGULATION.
1. Jurisdiction of Commission.
II. CARRIER'S DUTY TO TRANS-
2. Accustomed or natural route.
3. Conflict in billing between
rate and route.
4. Direct and reasonable route.
5. Lower rate via competing
6. Right of carrier to route.
7. Shipper's instructions.
TIL LIABILITY FOR MISROUTING.
8. Purden of proof.
9. Measure of damages.
10. Parties to make refund.
See Branch Lines, 5; Express Com-
panies, V; Through Routes and
Joint Rates, 6.
ROUTING AND MISROUTING, 1 (a) 2 (.c)
I. CONTROL AND REGULATION.
1. Jurisdiction of Commission.
See Refrigeration, 1 (b).
(a) The Act confers upon the Com-
mission jurisdiction over a complaint for
the recovery of the damage resulting
from misrouting a shipment, where such
damage arises from a rate or charge in
excess of the lawful rate or charge that
would have applied via the route over
which the shipment probably should have
moved, or movement over which was
specifically directed by the shipper.
Reparation awarded on a carload of
staves which moved from Monette, Ark.,
to Jackson, Mich., via Thebes, 111., and
Altamont, 111., instead of St. Louis, as
directed by complainant. Noble v. J. L.
C. & E. R. R. Co., 20 I. C. C. 520, 522.
(b) The Commission intervenes in
routing cases only when actual trans-
portation charges accrue, either as the
result of the failure of the carrier to
obey the shipper's routing instructions or
where, in the absence of Luch instruc-
tions, a more expensive route is used by
the carrier than is available. Larrowe
Milling Co. v. C. & N. W. Ry. Co., 17
I. C. C. 443, 445.
(c) The Commission has jurisdiction
to award reparation for the diversion of
a shipment by a connecting carrier, so
as to inflict upon the shipper a higher
rate than the joint rate by the route
over which he routed his shipment, such
jurisdiction arising by necessity from the
provisions of section 6 of the Act. Wood-
ward & Dickerson v. L. & N. R. R. Co..
15 I. C. C. 170, 172; sustained, 187 Fed.
874, 191 Fed. 705.
(d) The Commission has, under sec-
tion 6, jurisdiction to award damages for
the diversion of a shipment from the
route prescribed by the consignor. Wood-
ward & Dickerson v. L. & N. R. R. Co.,
15 I. C. C. 170, 172.
II. CARRIER'S DUTY TO TRANS-
See Discrimination, 9 (j).
2. Accustomed or Natural Route.
See Crimes, 11 (a).
(a) If a foreign car is available, which
under ruleg as to car service must be
sent via a particular line or route, over
which a higher rate obtains, the agent
must explain that fact to the shipper and
allow him to elect whether he will use
that car at the higher rate or wait for
another car. If the shipper elects to use
the car at the higher rate, the agent
should so note on the bill of lading.
When this rule is not complied with, the
carrier is liable for misrouting. Lord
& Bushnell Co. v. M. C. R. R. Co., 22 I.
C. C. 463.
(b) It cannot be denied that the cost
of transportation is a potent factor in
determining the route which traffic will
take. If confronted by increased rates
via routes over which it has been accus-
tomed to move, it will naturally seek
other outlets. Baltimore Chamber of
Commerce v. B. & O. R. R. Co., 22 I. C.
C. 596, 598.
(c) Complainant had shipped a car-
load of molasses, Philadelphia, Pa., to
Buffalo, N. Y., under a rate of 16c per
100 Ibs. Consignor in the blank on the
bill of lading for the route noted "D. L.
& W. R. R." The initial carrier, the Penn.
R. R., instead of delivering the car to the
D. L. & W. R. R., at Manunka Chunk, Pa.,
carried it over its own line to Buffalo and
there delivered it to the D. L. & W. R. R.,
which switched it to the warehouse. The
D. L. & W. R. R. unloaded carload freight
at Buffalo free of charge when it had a
line haul. As it did not have in this case,
the warehouse company collected $6.50
for its services. Defendant competed
with the D. L. & W. R. R. for Buffalo
traffic, and itself gave a free unloading
service at Buffalo over the platform of
another warehouse. HELD, defendant
is fairly chargeable with notice of the
free unloading and handling service at
that point of its competitor. The nota-
tion by the consignor in the blank of the
bill of lading intended for the naming of
a route must be regarded as an expres-
sion of the consignor's intention that the
D. L. & W. R. R. was to participate in
the line haul. When a line haul by one
company is intended and a terminal de-
livery is desired on the tracks of an-
other company the usual practice is to
indicate on the bill of lading that tho
reference is for delivery purpose only;
that the D. L. & W. R. R. should have
been utilized for the best interests of
the shipper; that the shipment was mis-
routed. Reparation awarded of unload-
ing charges, the rate exacted having
been the same if the D. L. & W. R. R.
had participated in the line haul. Pren-
tiss & Co. v. Pa. R. R. Co., 19 I. C. C. 68.
ROUTING AND MISROUTING, 2 (d) (k)
(d) A notation on the bill of lading
puts the carrier under obligation to use
the connecting line's facilities to the
best advantage of the shipper. Prentiss
& Co. v. P. R. R. Co., 19 I. C. C. 68, 69.
(e) A carrier may be chargeable with
notice of free unloading and handling
service of its competitor at a terminal.
Prentiss v. P. R. R. Co., 19 I. C. C. 68, 69.
(f) Complainant shipped lumber in
carloads from Hertford, N. C., to Ashland,
O., with no routing instructions except
Erie delivery, under a rate of 27^ ; via
a more direct route the rate was 20 %c.
The defense made was that the principal
defendant was not advised of the rates
of its connection and could not reason-
ably be required to keep its local agents
informed of the through charges to dis-
tant points of destination. HELD, this
cannot be accepted as a sufficient excuse
upon the facts here disclosed. With re-
spect to this point of origin the destina-
tion in question is not fairly to be re-
garded as a distant point, but is located
in territory as to which the principal de-
fendant ought to be more or less well
informed in order to conduct its trans-
portation with reasonable dispatch ana
satisfaction to itself and the public. Not
being advised to the cheapest available
and reasonably direct route it could have
demanded instructions from the con-
signor, could have made inquiry of the
connecting lines, but not having done so
it assumed the burden of giving the
shipper the advantage of the cheapest
reasonably available route. Reparation
awarded. Willson Bros. Lumber Co. v.
N. S. R. R. Co., 19 I. C. C. 293.
(g) An initial carrier is not liable for
misrouting for not routing via an Ohio
River crossing, using as a factor a spe-
cial commodity rate south of the river,
the initial carrier not being a party to
the rates named by the line south of the
river. Isbell & Co. v. L. S. & M. S. Ry.
Co., 19 I. C. C. 448.
(h) Complainant shipped dried beans
L. C. L. from Springport, Mich., to An-
niston, Ala., over lines of defendant L. S.
& M. S. and C. C. C. & St. L. railroads to
Cincinnati, thence via the L. & N. R. R.
to destination, under a combination rate
of 80c per 100 Ibs. Between the points
mentioned no joint through rate was ap-
plicable nor did the tariffs of defendants
provide any method for constructing a
through rate. The shipment could have
moved either through Cincinnati or Louis-
ville and via Louisville the ordinary com-
bination was 82c. At the time of move-
ment there was in effect from Louisville
to Nashville via the L. & N. R. R. a spe-
cial commodity rate of 16c and from
Nashville to Anniston a class rate of 41c.
By using the three factors of the local
rate from Springport to Louisville of 19c,
the special commodity rate from Louis-
ville to Nashville and the class rate from
Nashville to Anniston, a combination of
76c could have been made. While the
shipment was delivered to the initial car-
rier without any routing instructions,
complainant or its agent prepared the bill
of lading, presented it to the agent of
the carrier at Springport and desired to
prepay the freight charges through to
Anniston. The rate of 80c was then in-
serted in the bill of lading, as were also
the total charges based on this rate. This
was paid by the complainant. The initial
carrier contended that it sent the ship-
ment via the cheapest reasonable route
known to it, and that it was not aware of
the special commodity rate between
Louisville and Nashville, and the class
rate from Nashville to Anniston. The dis-
tances via both gateways are approxi-
mately the same. HELD, that the initial
carrier was not guilty of misrouting the
shipment. Isbell & Co. v. L. S. & M. S.
Ry. Co., 19 I. C. C. 448, 450.
(i) Where the lines are designated
but the shipment did not follow the ac-
customed route via those lines, a case of
misrouting is presented. Flatten Produce
Co. v. K. L. S. & C. Ry Co., 18 L C. C.
(j) Where a waybill on a carload of
grapes shipped from Paw Paw, Mich., to
Green Bay, Wis., issued by the Kalama-
zoo, Lake Shore & Chicago Ry. Co., speci-
fies the routing as via the Pere Marquette
and the Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul,
the usual and natural route for the ship-
ment is to move across the lake by car
ferry. Flatten Produce Co. v. K. L. S. &
C. Ry. Co., 18 I. C. C. 249, 249.
(k) A carload of grapes from Paw
Paw, Mich., to Green Bay, Wis., was
routed on the waybill issued by the ini-
tial carrier via the Pere Marquette and
the Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Ry.
Co. Under this routing the usual and
natural route was across the lake by
ferry. Upon receiving the shipment from
the initial carrier the Pere Marquette
moved the same via Chicago and sub-
ROUTING AND MISROUTING, 2 (1) 3 (d)
jected it to a 65c rate, whereas by the
route specified the rate was 33 y 2 c.
HELD, complainant was entitled to rep-
aration against the Pere Marquette R. R.
on the basis of 33V 2 c for misrouting.
Flatten Produce Co. v. K. L. S. & C. Ry.
Co., 18 I. C. C. 249, 250.
(1) A carload of grapes from Mon-
trose, la., to Rochester, Minn., moved
over the C. B. & Q. R. R. to Burlington,
la., thence over the C. R. I. & P. Py. tc
Goldfield, la., and thence to destination
over the C. & N. W. R. R. No through
rate was applicable via this route and the
sum of the locals, 77.09c, was collected.
At the same time a through rate of 30c
was in effect over the C. B. & Q. R. R.,
Montrose to Galena Junction, 111., and
thence over the C. Gt. W. Ry. to Roches-
ter, and also over the C. B. & Q. R. R. to
Sterling, 111., and thence over the C. & N.
W. Ry. to Rochester. The original bill
of lading was lost. Complainant's
copy showed the shipments billed to
Rochester "via Bur." The evidence of
complainant's witnesses was that com-
plainant did not route the shipment. De-
fendant's agent testified that against his
protest complainant insisted on the rout
ing via the course the shipment moved.
Had defendant -initial carrier routed the
shipment by Galena Junction or Ster-
ling, it would have received a greater
portion of the haul than over the route
shipment moved. On other shipments
prior to this, the complainant had routed
via the course taken by the shipment in
question. HELD, the evidence was not
sufficient to show that defendant initial
carrier, the C. B. & Q. R. R., misrouted
the shipment. Reparation denied. Gam-
ble-Robinson Commission Co. v. C. B. &
Q. R. R. Co., 18 I. C. C. 357, 359.
(m) A carload of posts from Witten-
berg, Wis., to Whittemore, la., was routed
by defendant, C. & N. W. Ry., via Mil-
waukee, this route taking a rate of 26 1 /c.
There were several other routes taking a
lower rate, but the route selected was the
nearest and most convenient junction
point, and was the natural and ordinary
one. The agent at Wittenberg, routing
the shipment, did not have in his pos-
session, and could not be reasonably ex-
pected to have, all the tariffs showing
other possible routings. HELD, no duty
rested on the initial carrier to hunt up
without the aid of an Iowa distance tariff
some unnatural connection by which the
traffic might reach its destination at a
slightly lower transportation charge.
Reparation denied. Wheeler Lumber,
Bridge & Supply Co. v. C. M. & St. P.
R. R. Co., 16 I. C. C. 525, 527.
3. Conflict in Billing Between Route
See Bills of Lading, 9 (1); Export
Rates and Facilities, II; Through
Routes and Joint Rates, III.
(a) Where the shipper's bill of lad-
ng contains instructions both as to route
and rate, and the rate is not applicable
over any route of the receiving carrier,
but is applicable over the route of a rival
arrier to which the shipment might have
t>een delivered, the receiving carrier may
forward the shipment over its own line
at the lowest rate lawfully applicable,
it not being obliged to turn the traffic
over to its competitor. McLean Lum-
ber Co. v. L. & N R. R. Co., 22 I. C. C.
(b) Where a shipper has written spe-
cific routing instructions in the bill nf
lading, and also inserted a rate which
does not apply over the route specified, it
is the duty of the initial carrier to send
the shipment via the route over which
such rate does apply. This rule does not
apply, however, so as to charge the in-
itial carrier with misrouting where it
fails to turn over the shipments to a
competing carrier with a lower rate. Mc-
Lean Lumber Co. v. L. & N. R. R. Co.,
22 I. C. C. 349, 351, 352.
(c) Where a consignor specified both
rate and route in the bill of lading and
the rate was not applicable to the route,
the initial carrier should obtain definite
instructions before forwarding or is liable
for damages for misrouting. Ludowici-
Celadon Co. v. M. P. Ry. Co., 22 I. C. C.
(d) Complainant alleged that an un-
reasonable rate was charged by the de-
fendants for the transportation of one
carload of roofing tile, roofing felt, ce
ment and nails from Coffeyville, Kan., to
Spokane, Wash. Claim for reparation
was based on the failure by the initial
carrier to forward the shipment over the
route via which the rate designated by
complainant in bill of lading was ap
plicable. The rate designated did not ap
ply over route specified, but was in effect
between Coffeyville and Spokane at the
time of shipment via several other routes
in connection with defendant. The car
rier, without obtaining further instruo
ROUTING AND MISROUTING, 3 (e) (1)
tions, forwarded shipment over the route
named in the bill of lading. HELD, that
the carriers, having sent goods over a
route via which a higher rate than the
one designated by complainant was ap-
plicable, must be held responsible for the
damages resulting from misrouting. Rep-
aration awarded. Ludowici-Celadon Co.
v. M. P. Ry. Co., 22 I. C. C. 588, 589.
(e) Where billing instructions were
given to protect a through rate, which,
however, would not apply via the speci-
fied route, and the carrier without in-
quiry forwarded the shipment via the
route named whereby the shipper suf-
fered damage, reparation should l-e
awarded. Gibson Fruit Co. v. C. & N.
W. Ry. Co., 21 I. C. C. 644.
(f) Complainant shipped a carload of
apples from Sioux City, la., to Chicago,
and thence reconsigned to New Orleans,
La., which was assessed a combination
rate of 62c. Contemporaneously there
was in effect via the C. & N. W. Ry., the
initial carrier, and the C. & E. I. R. R.
conflicting joint through rates of 42c and
39c. The reconsignment order in part
read: "Route via Illinois Central. Pro-
tect through rate of 42c cwt." HELD,
the obligation rests upon the carrier's
agent to refrain from executing a bill of
lading which contains provisions that are
contradictory or impossible of execution.
When, therefore, the rate and route are
both given by the shipper in the shipping
instructions and the rate given does not
apply via the route designated, it is the
duty of the carrier's agent to ascertain
from the shipper whether the rate or the
route given in the shipping instructions
shall be followed. This not having been
done, reparation is awarded, on the basis
of 39c. Gibson Fruit Co. v. C. & N. W.
Ry. Co., 21 I. C. C. 644, 645.
(g) Complainant shipped cotton lin-
ters, from Barnwell, S. C., to Pawtucket,
R. I., under a rate of 78%c per 100 Ibs.
Prior to shipment complainant inquired of
initial carrier the lowest rate and was
told that when value was limited to 2c
per Ib. the rail-and-water rate was 53c
and the all-rail rate 54c. Thereupon com-
plainant made out its own bills of lading
reading "all-rail 53c" and the bills of lad-
ing were signed by the agent of the car-
rier with full knowledge on his part that
the shipper desired the rate on cotton
linters released to a valuation of 2c per
Ib., but neglected to indorse upon them
any notation of the released valuation.
HELD, it was the duty of the defendants
to have secured the shipper's signature
to the released valuation clause; that the
proper rate to have applied was 54c.
Reparation awarded. Southern Cotto'i
Oil Co. v. Sou. Ry. Co., 19 I. C. C. 79.
(h) Complainant shipped cement in
carloads from Martins Creek, Pa., to
Brockton, Mass. Complainant's shipping
clerk inadvertently noted on the bill of
lading directions to forward the cars via
the L. V., W. S., and B. & A. railroads.
In two places on the bill of lading the
through rate was stated at $2.25 per net
ton and this was the legal joint rate over
a through route composed of the principal
defendant line in connection with the N.
Y. N. H. & H. R. R. and certain inter-
mediate lines. HELD, that in view of the
conflict between the routing instructions
and the through rate as specified on the
bill of lading it was the duty of the ini-
tial carrier to forward the shipment by
the cheaper route or to obtain further and
definite directions from the consignor.
Because of its failure to pursue either
course it must be held liable to the com-
plainant for the additional transporta-
tion charges resulting from the misrout-
ing. Alpha Portland Cement Co. v. D. L.
& W. R. R. Co., 19 I. C. C: 297, 298.
(i) Rate inserted by the consignor in
bill of lading was not applicable ever the
route named by him, but was applicable
over another route. HELD, that the ini-
tial carrier, instead of forwarding the
shipment over the route specified, which
carried a higher rate, should have for-
warded it over the route by which the
specified rate applied. Isbell-Brown Co.
v. G. T. W. Ry. Co., Unrep. Op. 226.
(j) Routing prescribed in bills of lad-
ing named railroads via which there were
two available routes, one carrying a
higher rate than the other, and initial
carrier routed the shipments via the more
expensive route. Reparation awarded.
Lair Furniture & Undertaking Co. v. N.
Y. C. & H. R. R. R. Co., Unrep. Op. 404.
(k) Two points in state by same name,
although in different counties. Correct
rate and route inserted in bill ot lad-
ing, but sent to wrong destination.
Reparation awarded. lola Portland Ce-
ment Co. v. M. K. & T. Ry. Co., Unrep.
(1) Lower rate inserted in bill of lad-
ing, but delivered to carrier having
higher rate in effect. No irround for
ROUTING AND MISROUTING, 4 (a) (1)
reparation. Wilkoff Bros. Co. v. P. & L.
E. R. R. Co. Unrep. Op. 467.
4. Direct and Reasonable Route.
(a) Where the initial carrier accepts
a shipment over a specified route, it is
liable for damages for diverting same to
another route taking a higher rate and
is not relieved from such liability by the
fact that the connecting carrier in the
specified rqute refuses to accept the ship-
ment. L. & N. R. R. Co. v. Dickerson,
191 Fed. 705, 710.
(b) Unless a carrier with a circuitous
route is willing to submit to conditions
made necessary by its competitors pos-
sessing shorter hauls, it should retire
from the business. Southern Illinois
Millers' Ass'n v. L. & N. R. R. Co., 23 I.
C. C. 672, 678.
(c) Where a rate, formerly applicable
via two routes, was subsequently limited
to a single route, and the initial carrier
failed to point out to complainant that
the lower rate applied only via one route
and that such rate had been withdrawn
from the route designated by complain-
ant, damages should be awarded. Atlan-
tic Refining Co. v. B. & O. R. R. Co., 23
I. C. C. 492.