of a weighing association composed of
defendants and other carriers. The
empty cars were taken to the scales and
weighed singly, each being uncoupled
from the rest. The empty weight was



written on a tag and attached to 'the car.
After being loaded, each car was again
weighed separately and the net weight
ascertained. The scales were officially
inspected twice a month by the
city of New Orleans. Bananas shipped
to the destinations in question shrunk
some 2 per cent in weight. Under
the method of shipment adopted by the
consignor, the destination of each car
was not determined until after the train
was on its way. Shrinkage varied ac-
cording to distance, thus making it im-
possible to deduct at the points of origin
an estimated shrinkage. HELD, shrink-
age was an element to be considered in
the fixing of the rate, and complainant's
demand that the cars be weighed at
destination should be denied, as the
method of weighing at the points of
origin was reasonable. Topeka Banana
Dealers' Ass'n v. St. L. & S. F. R. R.
Co., 13 I. C. C. 620, 625, 626.

III. DISCRIMINATION.

8. In General.

See Allowances, 13 (b), (c).

(a) Where a connecting carrier re-
ceives carloads of oil consisting of tank
cars and carloads made up of barrel
packages from the initial carrier, and
merely joins with the initial carrier in a
joint rate in itself reasonable, it is not
liable for the alleged discriminatory acts
of the initial carrier in charging for the
weight of the barrel package used in
shipments made by one class of ship-
pers, while at the same time making no
charge for the weight of the tank cars
against a competing class of shippers
using such method of shipment. Pa. Re-
fining Co. v. W. N. Y. & Pa. R. R. Co.,
208 U. S. 208, 222, 28 Sup. Ct. 268, 52 L.
ed. 456.

(b) The Official Express Classification
charged arbitrary weights on shipments
of liquor by express. Packed in a wooden
box a gallon of liquor weighed 18 Ibs.,
in a paper box a gallon of liquor weighed
three or four pounds less, but the ex-
press companies based their charge on
the former weight of 18 Ibs. These ar-
bitrary weights applied only to bottles
and stone jugs. When the glass con-
tainers came into use, which they did
recently, they were carried at actual
weight, and this created a discrimination
in their favor of three or four pounds.
HELD, that the charging of arbitrary
weights was not justified. In Re Advance



WEIGHTS AND WEIGHING, 8 (c) 9 (e)



905



in Rates for Transportation of Liquor, 21
I. C. C. 199.

(c) Complainant attacked the follow-
ing rule of defendants, applying to ship-
ments of dressed poultry packed in ice
from Kansas to points in Arizona, New
Mexico, Colorado, California and other
western states: "Poultry Dressed, G. S.:

B. Charge upon the actual gross weight,
except that an allowance of 25 per cent
from the gross weight may be made when
it is necessary to use ice for preserva-
tion, and it is used for that purpose only.
The charge on a shipment packed with
ice must not be less than the charge on
the net weight, with 25 per cent added,
unless the gross weight at the time of
shipment is less." HELD, from any point
of view the rule is ambiguous and sus-
ceptible of more than one meaning; that
it is unreasonable and should be modified
to provide that shipments of dressed
poultry when packed in ice shall be billed
at 25 per cent less than their gross
weight, but in no case at less than the net
weight of the poultry as invoiced by the
shipper, plus the weight of the .container.
R. R. Commissioners of Kansas v. Adams
Express Co., 21 I. C. C. 283, 284, 285.

(d) A tariff rule providing that coal
should not be weighed except at point of
origin, unreasonable. Peters v. O. S. L.
R. R. Co v 20 I. C. C. 598, 599.

(e) Charging on actual weight to com-
plainant and estimated weight to com-
petitors found discriminatory. American
Creosote Works v. I. C. R. R. Co., 18 I.

C. C. 212.

(f) On ties from Mississippi and Louis-
iana producing points to Southport, La.,
average distance 142 miles, a rate of 8.4c
per tie, or 6c per tie per 100 miles, was
assessed against complainant. At the
same time complainant's competitor at
Carbondale, an average distance of 465
miles, was accorded a rate of 12c per tie,
or 2%-c per tie per 100 miles, which rate
was equivalent to 3.55c per tie for 142
miles. The conditions surrounding the
movement to Carbondale and that to
Southport were, however, substantially
dissimilar. The Carbondale rate was as-
sessed upon an estimated weight of 100
Ibs. per tie, whereas the Southport rate
was assessed upon actual weight. Sub-
sequent to the filing of the complaint,
defendants changed their practice and as-
sessed the charges on shipments to Car-
bondale at the actual weight. HELD, the



rate itself assessed against complainant
was not shown to be unreasonable or dis-
criminatory, but the practice of according
to complainant's competitor an estimated
weight was unduly discriminatory. Rep-
aration awarded for charges exacted on
a weight in excess of 100 Ibs. per tie.
American Creosote Works, Ltd., v. I. C.
R. R. Co., 18 I. C. C. 212, 218, 219.

(g) Rule providing for the assessment
of freight charges on the basis of a mini-
mum weight of 5,000 Ibs. on packages of
plate glass loaded into box cars found
unreasonable. Reparation awarded. Bam-
ble Bros. v. C. M. & St. P. Ry. Co., Unrep.
Op. 173.

IV. EVIDENCE AND BURDEN OF
PROOF.

9. In General.

See Bills of Lading, 7.

(a) Positive evidence of the incorrect-
ness of a carrier's scaling is necessary
before another weight can be substituted.
Browne Grain Co. v. G C. & S. F. Ry. Co ,
20 I. C. C. 163, 164; Noble v D & T. S.
L. R. R. Co., 20 I. C. C. 60, 61.

(b) Disputes as to weights of past
shipments raise questions of fact which
are quite difficult of determination, as
re weighing is ordinarily impossible, 'and
evidence of a very positive character as
to the incorrectness of the scaling by the
carrier is necessary before another
weight can be substituted therefor.
Browne Grain Co. v G. C. & S F. Ry. Co
20 I. C. C. 163, 164.

(c) The weight of an article is con-
sidered in determining the classification.
Barrett Mfg. Co. v. C. M & St. P. Ry.
Co., 20 I. C. C. 79, 80; W. E. Caldwell Co.
v. C. I. & L. Ry. Co., 20 I. C. C. 412, 415.

(d) Complainant alleged that defend-
ants exacted charges upon a weight in
excess of the true weight of his shipment.
The evidence offered does not rebut the
presumption of accuracy that must at-
tach to the scale weights of defendants
and the complaint is dismissed. Allen v.
Pa. R. R. Co., Unrep. Op. 415.

(e) Complaint alleged that charges
were based upon a weight in excess of
the actual weight of shipment. Evidence
insufficient to rebut the presumption of
accuracy attaching to defendants' scale
weights. Reliance Mfg. Co. v. A. G. S.
R. R. Co., Unrep. Op. 562.



906



WEIGHTS AND WEIGHING, 10 (a) ZONE RATES



V. REPARATION.
10. In General.

(a) Reparation on the basis of ex-
icessive weight on yellow pine crossties
is denied inasmuch as the shipments
originated at many different points, the
consignors being mere agents of com-
plainant, and no evidence of any personal
knowledge of actual weights having been
introduced. Switzer Lumber Co. v. A. &
M. R. R. Co., 22 I. C. C. 471, 473.

(b) Reparation awarded on shipment
of cement from Chanute, Kan., to White-
wood, S. D., on account of unreasonable
minimum. Sunderland Bros Co. v. C.
& N. W. Ry. Co., Unrep. Op. 148.

(c) Reparation denied on shipment of
baled straw, as car could have been
loaded to the prescribed minimum. Rich-
mond Co. v. G. T. Ry Co. of Can., Unrep.
Op. 161.

(d) Reparation awarded on a ship-
ment of oats from Elk City, Okla., to
Columbus, Ga., on account of a charge
for overweight. Joseph Co. v. C. of Ga.
Ry. Co., Unrep. Op. 166.

(e) Reparation awarded because rates
were charged on larger cars than those
ordered. Bentley v. C. & N. W. Ry. Co.,
Unrep. Op. 181.



(f) Higher minimum weight inserted
in tariff through error. Reparation
awarded. Marquette Cement Mfg. Co v.
C. M. & St. P. Ry. Co., Unrep. Op. 188.

VI. TARIFFS AND PUBLICATION.

11. In General.

See Substitution of Tonnage, 2 (e),
(f); Tariffs, 3 (2) (i).

(a) As practice of making scaleage de-
ductions is not a matter of rates, the
Commission sees no reason why the
amount of the weight deductions should
be published in tariffs. Baltimore Cham-
ber of Commerce v. Pa. R. R. Co., 15 I.
C. C., 341.

(b) The practice of making scaleage
deductions based on estimated weights
does not present a question of rates; it
is a question of bailment only. Balti-
more Chamber of Commerce v Pa. R. R.
Co., 15 I. C. C. 341, 346.

WHARFAGE.

See Facilities and Privileges, 16.

WITNESSES.

See Interstate Commerce Commis-
sion, 6.

ZONE RATES.

Cee Blanket Rates.



INDEX OF CASES.

References are to pages. Star denotes case appears more than once
on that page. Black type refers to fact point.

Name. Page

A. C. L. R. R. Co. v. I. C. C, 194 Fed. 449 158, 170* 171,* 432*

A. C. L. R. R. Co. v. Macon Grocery Co., 166 Fed. 206 49

A. C. L. R. R. Co. v. Riverside Mills, 219 U. S. 186, 31 Sup. Ct.

164, 55 L. ed. 167 73, 476, 477,* 482 * 490*

A. C. L. R. R. Co. v. Ward (Ala., 1912), 58 So. 677 483, 491

A. G. S. Ry. Co. v. McCleskey, 160 Ala. 630, 49 S. 433 7

A. T. & S. F. Ry. Co. v. Bell (Okla., 1912), 120 P. 987 778, 808, 809*

A. T. & S. F. Ry. Co. v. Foster Lumber Co. (Okla., 1911), 122 P.

139 175, 430

A. T. & S. F. Ry. Co. v. I. C. C., 190 Fed. 591 285, 564, 44

A. T. & S. F. Ry. Co. v. I. C. C., 188 Fed. 229 791, 793, 891, 158

A. T. & S. F. Ry. Co. v. I. C. C., 182 Fed. 189 44

A. T. & S. F. Ry. Co. v. Rodgers (N. M., 1911), 113 P. 805 480

A. T. & S. F. Ry. Co. v. State (Okla., 1912), 123 P. 1065 424

A. T. & S. F. Ry. Co. v. The Superior Refining Co., 83 Kan. 732, 112

P. 604 429

A. T. & S. F. Ry. Co. v. U. S., 170 Fed. 250 187, 191, 192

A. T. & S. F. Ry. Co. v. U. S., 191 Fed. 856 442, 443, 468

Abeles & Co. v. St. L. S. W. Ry. Co., Unrep. Op. 326 360, 610, 739

Acme Cement Plaster Co. v. St. L. & S. F. R. R. Co., 22 I. C. C. 283. . 547
Acme Cement Plaster Co. vs. C. & N. W. Ry. Co., 18 I. C. C.

105 1, 104, 105,

131, 132, 247, 294, 303, 307, 312, 324, 355, 404, 419, 456, 507, 516,

541, 570, 594, 597, 603, 612, 678, 684, 703, 718, 721, 731, 736, 739, 803
Acme Cement Plaster Co. v. L. S. & M. S. Ry. Co., 17 I. C.

C. 30 317, 326, 596

Acme Cement Plaster Co. v. C. R. I. & P. Ry. Co., Unrep. Op. 37 731

Acme Cement Plaster Co. v. C., M. & St. P. Ry. Co., Unrep. Op. 46. . 864

Adams Express Co. v. Green (Va., 1911), 72 S. E. 102 482

Adams Express Co. v. Charlottesville Woolen Mills (Va., 1908), 63

S. E. 8 194, 425

Advance Thresher Co. v. O. & N. W. R. R. Co., 15 I. C. C.

599 535, 613, 739, 812, 825, 862

Advance Thresher Co. v. M. C. R. R. Co., Unrep. Op. 283 330

Aetna Powder Co. v. C., M. & St. P. Ry. Co., 17 I. C. C. 165 150, 651

Ala. Lumber & Export Co. v. P. B. & W. R. R. Co., 19 I. C. C. 295.804, 808
Alabama Lumber & Export Co., v. C. of Ga. Ry. Co., Unrep. Op.

442 517, 532

Alabama Lumber & Export Co. v. L. & N. R. R. Co., 23 I. C. C. 84. . 761

907



908 INDEX OF CASES



Name. Page.

Alabama Coal Operators' Association v. S. Ry. Co., 21 I. C. C. 230.

208, 213, 306

Alan Wood Iron & Steel Co. v. P. R. R. Co., 22 I. C. C. 540 780, 790

Alaska Lumber Co. v. G. N. Ry. Co., Unrep. Op. 564 360, 607

Albany Box & Basket Co. v. I. C. R. R. Co., 16 I. C. C. 315 829

Albree v. B. & M. R. R. Co., 22 I. C. C. 303 108, 111, 136, 286,

335, 339, 361, 427, 584, 585, 589, 593, 611, 675, 707, 708, 816, 831, 893

Alexander & Co. v. A., T. & S. F. Ry. Co., Unrep. Op. 187 738

Algert Co. v. D. & R. G. R. R. Co., 20 I. C. C. 93 .147, 150, 770

Algert Co. v. C., B. & Q. R. R. Co., Unrep. Op. 379 148

Allen & Co. v. C., M. & St. P. Ry. Co., 16 I. C. C. 293 714, 861

Allen v. P. R. R. Co., Unrep. Op. 415 361, 905

Allender v. C., B. & Q. R. R. Co., 16 I. C. C. 103 531

Alpha Portland Cement Co. v. B. & O. R. R. Co., 22 I. C. C.

446 84, 88, 240, 315

Alpha Portland Cement Co. v. Penn. R. R. Co., 20 I. C. C. 640 864, 867

Alpha Portland Cement Co. v. D., L. & W. R. R. Co., 19 I. C. C. 297. . 752
Alphons Custodis Chimney Construction Co. v. S. Ry. Co., 16 I. C. C.

584 186, 359, 607

Alphons Custodis Chimney Construction Co. v. V. R. R. Co., 16 I. C.

C. 600 782

Amarillo Gas Co. v. A., T. & S. F. Ry. Co., 13 I. C. C. 240 630

American Agricultural Chemical Co. v. Erie R. R. Co., 16 I. C. C.

320 90, 657

American Asphalt Ass'n v. Uintah Ry. Co., 13 I. C. C. 196. .336, 513, 584
American Bankers' Association v. American Express Co., 15 I. C.

C. 15 373, 375, 376, 378, 554, 775

American Beet Sugar Co. v. C., R. I. & P. R. R. Co., 16 I. C. C. 288. .. 454
American Cement Plaster Co. v. C., R. I. & P. Ry. Co., Unrep. Op.

285 507

American Cigar Co. v. P. & R. Ry. Co., 20 I. C. C. 81 .248, 358, 516, 606, 622

American Cigar Co. v. L. S. & M. S. Ry. Co., Unrep. Op. 17 864

American Cigar Co. v. C., M. & St. P. Ry. Co., 15 I. C. C. 618 7, 864

American Coal Co. v. B. & O. R. R. Co., 17 I. C. C. 149 82, 89, 457

American Creosoting Works, v. 111. Cent. R. R. Co., 15 I. C.

160 112, 203,* 204*

American Creosote Works v. I. C. R. R. Co., 18 I. C. C. 212

141, 232,* 333, 382, 721,* 828, 905*

American Express Co. v. U. S., 212 U. S. 522, 29 Sup. Ct. 315,

53 L. ed. 635 185, 373

American Grocer Co. v. P. C. C. & St. L. Ry. Co., 13 I. C. C. 293. ... 744
American Hardwood Co. v. St. L., I. M. & S. Ry. Co., Unrep. Op. 550. 735

American Hay Co. v. L. V. R. R. Co., 21 I. C. C. 166 399, 698

American Hide & Leather Co. v. Pa. Co., Unrep. Op. 22 864

American Lumber & Mfg. Co. v. S. P. Co., 14 I. C. C. 561 499

American Lumber Mfg. Co. v. C. of Ga. Ry. Co., Unrep. Op. 153 516

American Lumber & Mfg. Co. v. L. Ry. & Nav. Co., Unrep. Op. 470. 865
American Mfg. Co. v. L. & N. R. R. Co., 21 I. C. C. 483 153



INDEX OF CASES 909



Name. Page.

American Milling Co. v. M., St. P. & S. Ste. M. Ry. Co., Unrep. Op.

282 349, 731

American Milling Co. v. C, M. & St. P. Ry. Co., Unrep. Op. 384. .114, 349

American Milling Co. v. P. M. R. R. Co., Unrep. Op. 328 595

American Milling Co. v. L. H. & St. L. Ry. Co., Unrep. Op. 515 865

American Plow Co. v. P. M. R. R. Co., Unrep. Op. 144 865

American Plow Co. v. P. M. R. R. Co., Unrep. Op. 219 727, 865

American Refractories Co. v. E. J. & E. R. R. Co., 15 I. C. C.

480 617, 714, 719

American Sand & Gravel Co. v. C., M. & St. P. Ry. Co., Unrep.

Op. 13 736

American Smelting & Refining Co. v. O. S. L. R. R. Co., Unrep.

Op. 162 877

American Tie & Timber Co. v. K. C. S. Ry. Co., 175 Fed. 28 125

American Tobacco Co. v. C., M. & St. P. Ry. Co., Unrep. Op. 167 937

American Trust & Savings Bank v. C., M. & St. P. Ry. Co., 17 I. C.

C. 11 621

American Union Coal Co. v. Penn. R. R. Co., 159 Fed, 278 714, 747

Ames-Brooks Company v. Rutland R. R. Co., 16 I. C. C. 479.

54, 223, 774, 805,* 806, 808, 812

Anaconda Copper Mining Co. v. C. & E. R. R. Co., 19 I. C. C.

592 127, 351, 598, 612

Anadarko Cotton Oil Co. v. A., T. & S. F. R. R. Co., 20 I. C. C. 43.

50, 316, 324, 331, 357,* 358, 410, 542, 568,* 576, 606, 633, 716,* 717
Anderson, Clayton & Co. v. C., R. I. & P. Ry. Co., 18 I. C. C.

340 54, 55, 167, 168, 169

Anderson, Clayton & Co. v. St. L. & S. F. R. R. Co., 17 I. C.

C. 12 404,882

Anderson-Tully Co. v. C, R. I. & P. Ry. Co., 18 I. C. C. 48 635

Anderson Vehicle Co. v. L. S. & M. S. Ry. Co., Unrep. Op. 23 864

Andy's Ridge Co. v. S. Ry. Co., 18 I. C. C. 405

209,* 218,* 268,* 289,* 308, 570, 586, 587, 594

Anguish v. C. I. & L. Ry. Co., Unrep. Op. 580 290, 877

Anheuser-Busch Brewing Ass'n v. E. P. & S. W. Co., Unrep. Op. 547. 866
Anheuser-Busch Brewing Ass'n v. M. P. Ry. Co., Unrep. Op. 497.457, 740
Anthony Wholesale Grocery Co. v. A., T. & S. F. Ry. Co., 13 I. C. C.

605 103, 595

Anthony v. Philadelphia & Reading Ry. Co., 14 L C. C. 581

101, 144, 320,* 849

Arizona Ry. Comm. v. E. P. & So. W. Co., Unrep. Op. 526 130, 865

Arizona Ry. Comm. v. Wells, Fargo & Co., 20 I. C. C. 571 661, 774

Arkansas Fertilizer Co. v. U. S., 193 Fed. 667 4, 126, 127, 157

Arkansas Fuel Co. v. C., M. & St. P. Ry. Co., 16 I. C. C. 95

553, 570, 652, 714,* 804

Arkansas Fuel Co. v. C., M. & St. P. Ry. Co., Unrep. Op. 246 652, 831

Arkansas Fertilizer Co. v. B. & O. R. R. Co., Unrep. Op. 507 865

Arlington Heights Fruit Co. v. S. P. Co., 175 Fed. 141 9, 49*

Arlington Heights Fruit Exchange v. S. P. Co., 22 I. C. C. 149

79, 81, 82, 95, 100, 285, 337, 340, 567, 586, 592, 638, 708*



910 INDEX OF CASES



Name. Page.
Arlington Heights Fruit Exchange v. S. P. Co., 20 I. C. C. 106

Ill, 532,* 533,* 534,* 707,* 708, 709,* 887, 893

Arlington Heights Fruit Exchange v. S. P. Co., 19 I. C. C. 148

44, 50, 640, 700, 709, 891

Armour Car Lines v. S. P. Co., 17 I. C. C. 461

227, 359, 607, 653, 741, 774, 782

Armour Car Lines v. St. L. & S. F. R. R. Co., Unrep. Op. 32 864

Armour & Co. v. C. M. & St. P. Ry. Co., Unrep. Op. 18 736

Armour Packing Co. v. IL S., 209 U. S. 56, 82, 28 Sup. Ct. 428, 52 L.

ed. 681 181, 182, 185, 186, 189, 191, 193

Arnold v. M. P. Ry. Co., Unrep. Op. 293 738

Arrow Lumber & Shingle Co. v. M., St. P. & S. Ste. M. Ry. Co.,

Unrep. Op. 145 516, 544

Ashgrove Cement Co. v. A., T. & S. F. Ry. Co., 23 I. C. C. 519.352, 602, 608
Ashland Fire Brick Co. v. S. Ry. Co., 22 I. C. C. 115. . .224, 245, 246, 285*
Asparagus Growers' Ass'n v. A. C. L. R. R. Co., 17 I. C. C. 423.

642, 710

Associated Jobbers of Los Angeles v. A., T. & S. F. Ry. Co., 18 I. C.

C. 310 5, 8, 126, 410, 569, 793, 794, 811, 837, 839

Association of Union-Made Garment Manufacturers v. C. & N. W.

Ry. Co., 16 I. C. C. 405 241, 343, 350, 598, 900

Atchison v. St. L., I. M. & S. Ry. Co., 22 I. C. C. 131 616

Atlantic Refining Co. v. B. & O. R. R. Co., 23 I. C. C. 492 753, 761

Austin Mfg. Co. v. I. C. R. R. Co., Unrep. Op. 72 736

Auto Vehicle Co. v. C., M. & St. P. Ry. Co., 21 I. C. C. 286

567, 610, 614, 818

Avery Manufacturing Co. v. A., T. & S. F. Ry. Co., 16 I. C. C. 20

79, 227, 264, 295, 299, 309,* 594, 861

Awbrey & Semple v. G. H. & S. A. Ry. Co., 17 I. C. C. 267

552, 864, 870,* 880

B. & O. R. R. Co. v. I. C. C., 221 U. S. 612, 31 Sup. Ct. Rep. 621,

55 L. ed. 878 283, 284, 425, 747

B. & O. R. R. Co. v. La Due, 57 Misc. 614, 616, 108 N. Y. Supp. 659;

reversed 128 App. Div. 594, 122 N. Y. Supp. 964

430, 777, 778, 806,* 807, 880,* 894

B. & O. S. W. Ry. Co. v. New Albany Box & Basket Co. (Ind., 1911),

94 N. E. 906 809,* 811, 894*

B. & O. S. W. R. R. Co. v. U. S., 195 Fed. 962 793, 841, 852

Back v. C., M. & St. P. Ry. Co., Unrep. Op. 292 671

Badenoch Co. v. C. & N. W. Ry. Co., 22 I. C. C. 36 420, 830

Baer Bros. Mercantile Co. v. M. P. Ry. Co., 19 I. C. C. 18 614

Baer Bros. Mercantile Co. v. M. P. Ry. Co., 17 I. C. C. 225

269, 312, 420, 615, 841, 843*

Baer Bros. Mercantile Co. v. M. P. Ry. Co., 13 I. C. C. 329

421, 458, 715, 722

Bainbridge Board of Trade v. L., H. & St. L. Ry. Co., 15 I. C. C. 586. .

237, 258, 259, 304,* 333,* 584*



INDEX OF CASES 911



Name. Page.

Baird Lumber Co. v. L. & N. R. R. Co., Unrep. Op. 549 866*

Baker Mfg. Co. v. C. & N. W. Ry. Co., 21 I. C. C. 605 656,* 724, 741

Baker v. Cumberland Valley R. R. Co., 14 I. C. C. 568 221, 541

Baldwin Land Co. v. Columbia Ry. Co., 58 Or. 285, 114 P. 569..

172, 419, 514, 809

Balfour, Guthrie & Co. v. O. W. R. R. & Nav. Co., 21 I. C. C. 539,

56, 67, 111

Ballin v. S. P. Co., 19 I. C. C. 503 525, 531

Baltimore Butchers' Live Stock Co. v. P. B. W. R. R. Co., 20 I. C. C.

124 364, 773, 774,* 781, 783, 836, 837

Baltimore Chamber of Commerce v. B. & O. R. R. Co., 22 I. C. C.

596 286, 323,* 327, 368, 476, 556, 749

Baltimore Chamber of Commerce v. Penn. R. R. Co., 15 I. C. C. 341.

395, 900, 904, 906*

Baltimore & O. S. W. Ry. Co. v. New Albany Box & Basket Co.

(Ind., 1911), 94 N. E. 906 776,* 814

Bamble Bros. v. C., M. & St. P. Ry. Co., Unrep. Op. 173. . . .150, 878, 905
Banner Grain Co. v. Great N. Ry. Co. (Minn., 1912), 137 N. W. 161,

228, 791

Banner Milling Co. v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. R. Co., 19 I. C. C. 128. ... 14
Banner Milling Co. v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. R. Co., 14 I. C. C. 398. . . .

29, 36, 554,* 591, 832

Banner Milling Co. v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. R. Co., 13 I. C. C. 31

215, 265, 604

Bannon v. Southern Express Co., 13 I. C. C. 516 184, 380, 710

Barker & Co. v. G. & S. I. R. R. Co., Unrep. Op. 332 768

Barlow v. M. P. Ry. Co., Unrep. Op. 134 865

Barnum Iron Works v. C., C., C. & St. L. Ry. Co., 18 I. C. C. 94. .

33, 333, 503*

Barr Chemical Works v. P. & R. R. R. Co., 20 I. C. C. 77 142, 550

Barr Chemical Works v. P. & R. Ry. Co., Unrep. Op. 473 508

Barrett Mfg. Co. v. C., M. & St. P. Ry. Co., 20 I. C. C. 79 139, 905

Barrett Mfg. Co. v. C. R. R., etc., Co., 17 I. C. C. 464 64, 441,* 835

Barrett Mfg. Co. v. Graham & Morton Transportation Co., 16 I. C. C.

399 864, 872

Barrett Mfg. Co. v. L. & N. R. R. Co., 15 I. C. C. 196 630

Bartles Oil Co. v. C., M. & St. P. Ry. Co., 17 I. C. C. 146

328, 342, 573, 593, 678

Bartling Grain Co. v. M. P. Ry. Co., 16 I. C. C. 494 103

Barton, Reisinger, Davis Co. v. St. L., I. M. & S. Ry. Co., 15 I. C. C.

222 301

Bascom Co. v. A., T. & S. F. Ry. Co., 17 I. C. C. 354 233, 557, 559*

Bash Fertilizer Co. v. Wabash R. R. Co., 18 I. C. C. 522

324, 338, 407, 591, 603, 685

Battle v. Atkinson, 9 Ga. App. 488, 71 S. E. 775 894

Baxter & Co. v. G. S. & F. Ry. Co., 21 I. C. C. 647 327, 502, 572, 666

Bayou City Rice Mills v. T. & N. O. R. R. Co., 18 I. C. C. 490

461, 469, 556, 698, 704, 861



912 INDEX OF CASES



Name. Page.

Bayou City Rice Mills v. H. & T. C. R. R. Co., Unrep. Op. 90 877

Beall v. W. A. & M. V. Ry. Co., 20 I. C. C. 406 280, 283

Bearmon Fruit Co. v. A., T. & S. F. Ry. Co., Unrep. Op. 395 740

Beatrice Creamery Co. v. I. C. R. R. Co., 15 I. C. C. 109

33, 228, 287, 335, 594, 676, 775

Beekman Lumber Co. v. L. Ry. & N. Co., 21 I. C. C. 280.. 184, 724, 762, 890
Beekman Lumber Co. v. St. L. & S. F. R. R. Co., 21 I. C. C. 270

275 129, 242, 890

Beekman Lumber Co. v. M. C. R. R. Co., 21 I. C. C. 276 128, 275, 276

Beekman Lumber Co. v. I. C. R. R. Co., 20 L C. C 98 556, 666

Beekman Lumber Co. v. Louisiana Ry. & N. Co., 19 I. C. C. 343. .202, 755

Beekman Lumber Co. v. K. C. S. Ry. Co., 17 I. C. C. 86 700*

Beekman Lumber Co. v. C., R. I. & P. Ry. Co., 16 I. C. C. 528 143

Beekman Lumber Co. v. St. L. S. W. Ry. Co., 14 I. C. C. 532....

200,* 203, 701

Beekman Lumber Co. v. St. L., I. M. & S. Ry. Co., 15 L C. C. 274. . .

130, 551, 610, 691

Beggs v. Wabash R. R. Co., 16 I. C. C. 208 499, 901

Bennett v. M., St. P. & S. Ste. M. Ry. Co., 15 I. C. C. 301

135, 505, 541, 551, 901

Bentley v. C. & N. W. Ry. Co., Unrep. Op. 181 113, 499, 906

Bentley & Olmsted Co. v. L. S. & M. S. Ry. Co., 17 I. C. C 56.71, 351, 612

Benton v. St. L. & S. F. R. R. Co., Unrep. Op. 304 770, 865

Benton Transit Co. v. Benton Harbor, St. Joe Ry. & Light Co., 13

I. C. C. 542 859, 898

Berlin Machine Works v. B. & O. S. W. R. R. Co., Unrep. Op.

321 865, 878

Bernard v. Adams Express Co., 205 Mass. 254, 91 N. E. 325 488

Betus v. C., B. & Q. R. R. Co. (la., 1911), 129 N. W. 962 480

Bewsher Co. v. U. P. R. R. Co., 22 I. C. C. 146 131

Bibber-White Co. v. White River Valley Electric R. R. Co., 175

Fed. 470 772

Biddle Purchasing Co. v. B. & O. R. R. Co., Unrep. Op. 430 769

Big Blackfoot Milling Co. v. N. P. Ry. Co., 16 I. C. C. 173 89, 220, 317

Big Canon Ranch Co. v. G. H. & S. A. Ry. Co., 20 I. C. C. 523

418, 435, 892

Billings Chamber of Commerce v. C., B. & Q. R. R. Co., 19 I. C. C. 71 .

104, 306, 344, 569, 589, 597, 622

Bituminous Coal Operators v. Penn. R. R. Co., 23 I. C. C. 385

269, 273, 285, 289, 291, 317, 355, 361

Black v. G. N. Ry. Co., 23 I. C. C. 402 693

Black Horse Tobacco Co. v. I. C. R. R. Co., 17 I. C. C. 588