(j) Where neither the bill of lading
nor the waybill bears any notation indi-
cating that a car of a particular size was
ordered by the shipper, and neither the
complainant nor any other witness states
definitely that the order given for the
shipment required the defendant carrier
to furnish a car of small capacity, and
where no other evidence that such equip-
ment was made is offered, rep-
aration will not be granted for charges
assessed on the minimum of a larger
car than the one complainant alleges he
ordered. Wheeler Lumber, Bridge &
Supply Co. v. S. P. Co., 16 I. C. C. 547,
4. Larger Car Furnished Than Ordered.
See Weights and Weighing, 3 (k),
(a) A supplement to a tariff of the
B. & O. R. R. Co. provided that certain
lumber and forest products should take
a minimum of 30,000 Ibs. for cars over
thirty-six feet and 24,000 Ibs. for cars
under thirty-six feet. Complainant ap-
plied for a thirty-three-foot car in which
to ship elm hoops. After six days he
accepted a thirty-six foot car. His ship-
ment weighed 20,100 Ibs., but he was
charged on a minimum of 30,000 Ibs.
The Commission held in 20 I. C. C. 172
that complainant was entitled to a thirty-
three-foot car; that defendant having
furnished the larger car for its own con-
venience, the minimum of the smaller
car should be applied, and that the tariff
was unreasonable in not containing that
provision, and awarded reparation to the
complainant and ordered the incorpora-
tion of a proper rule in the tariff. The
defendant filed a petition for rehearing,
based upon the fact that the B. & O. R.
R. operating in Official Classification ter-
ritory is subject to a provision that the
minimum shall be protected in such in-
stances, except where a car more than
forty feet six inches in length is fur-
nished, in which case the minimum of
the car furnished must be applied, and
that if it should be compelled to abro-
gate this rule it would necessitate similar
action by all its . competitors. HELD,
that in all cases where the carrier by its
tariff established particular minima as ap-
plicable to cars of given dimensions, it
must furnish a car of the size provided
for and ordered by the shipper, or pro-
vide other equipment under such condi-
tions as to fairly protect the minimum
of the car ordered. Prior report modi-
MINIMUMS, 4 (b) (f)
fied. Noble v. B. & O. R. R. Co., 22 I.
C. C. 432, 438.
(b) On carloads of farm and freight
wagons from Toledo, O., to Smith ville,
Tex., the initial carrier supplied a forty-
five-foot car, when the complainant or-
dered a thirty-six-foot car. Complainant
was charged the minimum weight ap-
plicable to the car furnished. Defendant
stated that a car of the size ordered was
unavailable, and that a forty-foot car was
ordered, but by mistake a f orty-f /e-f oot
car was used, and offered to refund upon
the basis of a forty-foot car. HELD, that
the initial carrier should establish for
the future a rule to the effect that when
a car of the capacity or dimensions or-
dered cannot be furnished after six full
days' notice, and a larger car is furnished,
such larger car shall be used on the basis
of the minimum weight fixed in the tariff
for the car which was ordered, provided
the shipment could have been loaded
upon the cars ordered. Reparation
granted. Milburn Wagon Co. v. L. S. &
M. S. Ry. Co., 22 I. C. C. 511.
(c) Complainant ordered cars of
40,000 Ibs. capacity for shipments of
brick, but cars of 60,000 Ibs. capacity
were furnished for the convenience of
the carrier. The shipments weighed less
than 50,000 Ibs. to the car, but were
assessed on a minimum of 50,000 Ibs.,
as specified in the tariff. A reference
mark annexed to the Item in the tariff
specifying the minimum weight referred
to a foot-note which read, "except when
the marked capacity of the car is less,
in which event the marked capacity of
the car will govern." HELD, the pre-
cise meaning of this rule in relation to
the prescribed minimum weight of 50,000
Ibs. is ambiguous and uncertain. It does
not indicate under what circumstances
a smaller car may be used, whether upon
order from the shipper for a car of less
capacity, or whether at the will and
for the convenience of the carrier. If
the latter, it is obviously improper, since
under such a rule it might happen that
one shipper would always be furnished
with cars of 50,000 Ibs. capacity or
greater, and be obliged to pay freight on
that minimum when his shipments, as
in this case, might run several thousands
under the minimum. On the other hand,
it might happen that another shipper
would for the convenience of the car-
rier or otherwise be always furnished
with cars of less capacity and accordingly
be required to pay on the lower minimum,
or only on actual weight if greater than
such lower minimum. Manifestly it can-
not be claimed that the rule fixed an in-
variable or even a definitely ascertain-
able minimum weight relative to the
rates named. The tariff does not con-
tain elsewhere within itself an absolute
rule, nor does it refer to any other tariff
wherein an absolute rule is published.
In both cases the fact that the shipper
had ordered a smaller car was noted on
the bill of lading. Reparation awarded
for excess of rate above actual weight
of shipment. Hull & Co. v. M. P. Ry.
Co., 21 I. C. C. 48'6.
(d) Complainant demanded repara-
tion on a shipment of coiled elm hoops
from Creston, O., to Windsor Shades, Va.
The shipment moved on June 18, 1909.
June 12, a thirty-four-foot car was or-
dered of the railroad agent at Creston
and if furnished the shipment, which
weighed 20,100 Ibs., would have moved
subject to a minimum of 24,000 Ibs.
Shipper could not secure the car ordered
and on June 18 was compelled to use a
thirty-six-foot car to which was ap-
plicable a 30,000-lb. minimum. A thirty-
four-foot car was received at Creston
June 19. Creston is a small local sta-
tion and defendants contended that rea-
sonable notice for this kind of a car
would be a week or ten days. HELD,
that under Rule 66 of Tariff Circular
1 i-SA it is the duty of carriers to prompt-
ly furnish cars on order, which was not
the fact in this case; that where car-
riers cannot promptly furnish equipment
of the capacity ordered tariff should pro-
vide that if a car of a different capacity
is furnished such car might be used upon
the basis of the minimum fixed for the
car which was ordered. Reparation
awarded on 6,000 Ibs., the difference be-
tween the minimum of a thirty-four-foot
car and the car furnished. Noble v. B.
& O. R. R. Co., 20 I. C. C. 72.
(e) Where the carrier furnishes a
larger car than what the shipper orders
and the traffic contains no provision as-
sessing charges upon the basis of a mini-
mum for the car ordered, reparation
should be awarded for such failure.
Noble v. B. & M. R. R. Co., 20 I. C. C. 72.
(f) Where a shipper orders a car of
specified length and the carrier supplies
one of larger dimensions, the shipper is
entitled to charges assessed on the actual
weight of the shipment where the weight
exceeds the minimum of the kind of car
ordered, but is less than that of the one
MLNIMUMS, 4 (g) (p)
furnished, despite the fact that at the
time of the shipment the carrier had
no published rule to that effect where
the shipment actually moved could have
been loaded into the car ordered. Rep-
aration awarded on shipment of cedar
posts from Hines, Minn., to Benton, Neb.,
where the shipper ordered a thirty-three-
foot car, was furnished a thirty-four-foot
car and assessed on the thirty-four-foot
car minimum. Kaye & Carter Lumber
Co. v. M. & I. Ry. Co., 17 I. C. C. 209, 211.
(g) A fifty-foot car was furnished,
with a mimimum of 16,000 Ibs.; actual
weight of shipment was 14,580 Ibs., and
charges were based on 16,000 Ibs. mini-
mum; car was not loaded to full capacity
and forty-foot car could have held ship-
ment. HELD, as applied to this shipment
(wood mantels) 14,000 would have been
a reasonable minimum. (Clark, Comm'r,
dissenting.) Peerless Agencies Co. v.
A. T. & S. F. Ry. Co., 17 I. C. C. 218.
(h) The tariffs of a defendant are un-
reasonable and unlawful in failing to pro-
vide that, when a larger capacity car is
furnished instead if the smaller, ca-
pacity demanded, the minimum appli-
cable to the smaller capacity car should
be observed. Beggs v. Wabash R. R.
Co., 16 I. C. C. 208.
(i) Complainant, for carload ship-
ments of anthracite coal from Superior,
Wis., to points in North and South Da-
kota, ordered cars of 40 000 Ibs. capacity.
Defendants, for their own convenience,
furnished cars of 60,000 Ibs. capacity
and charged on the basis of the minimum
for such 60,000-lb. cars, instead of upon
the actual weight of the shipments, which
exceeded the minimum required for the
40,000-lb. capacity cars. HELD, com-
plainant was entitled to reparation on
the basis of actual weight. Hanna Coal
Co. v. N. P. Ry. Co., 16 I. C. C. 289.
(j) Defendant, for its own conven-
ience, having furnished an 80,000-lb. car
when complainant had ordered one of
GO 000 Ibs., the latter is entitled to have
charges on sulphide of iron from Pu-
laski. Va., to Edgewater, N. J., assessed
on the basis of the smaller minimum.
General Chemical Co. v. N. & W. Ry. Co.
15 I. C. C. 349, 350.
(k) If, upon reasonable demand, a
carrier cannot supply a car of the size
ordered it is its duty to accept shipment
and move it in any available car, ap-
plying a rate on the basis of the marked
capacity of the car ordered. General
Chemical Co. v. N. & W. Ry. Co., 15
I. C. C. 349.
(1) Where, under a tariff naming a
rate with the minimum to be the marked
capacity of the car, a car of a particular
capacity is not available upon the reason-
able demand of the shipper, the carrier
must nevertheless accept and carry the
shipment in any car or cars available,
assessing the charges on the basis of
the marked capacity of the car de-
manded. General Chemical Co. v. N. &
W. Ry. Co., 15 I. C. C. 349, 350.
(m) On a shipment, of lumber weigh-
ing 39,500 Ibs. from Paper Mills, Ore.,
to Queen Junction, Pa., complainant
ordered a car of 40,000 Ibs. capacity
and was furnished one of 80,000 Ibs.
capacity. He protested at the time of
loading and was advised by the de-
fendants' representative to go ahead
and take up the matter of the charge
later. He was assessed on the basis
of the minimum of 60,000 Ibs. for a
car of 80,000 Ibs. capacity. Under
their published tariff defendants offered
cars of 40,000 Ibs. capacity, but were
unable to furnish one at the time in
question. Defendants west of Chicago
by their tariffs provided that the rate
should be applied on a minimum of
40,000 Ibs. when a car of 40,000 Ibs.
capacity was furnished. Defendants
east of Chicago provided a minimum of
34,000 Ibs. on lumber in cars of any
capacity. HELD, reparation should be
awarded based on 40,000 Ibs. between
Paper Mills and Chicago, and 39,500
Ibs. between Chicago and destination.
American Lumber & Mfg. Co v. S. P.
Co., 14 I. C. C. 561, 562.
(n) Reparation awarded because
rates were charged on larger cars than
those ordered. Bentley v. C. & N. W.
Ry. Co., Unrep. Op. 181.
(o) Tariffs of defendants should have
provided that when cars of dimensions
ordered by the shipper could not be
furnished and cars of larger dimensions
were furnished for convenience of car-
riers, such cars might be used upon
the basis of the minimum fixed for the
cars which were ordered. Reparation
ordered. Lininger Implement Co. v. C.
& N. W. Ry. Co., Unrep. Op. 414.
(p) Larger car furnished than one
ordered and rates based on minimum
of larger car. HELD, rates should
MINIMUMS, 5 (a) (d)
have been based on actual weight of
shipment, -which was more than mini
mum of car ordered, but less than car
furnished. Reparation awarded. Torrey
Cedar Co. v. C. & N. W. Ry. Co., Un
rep. Op. 420.
5. Minimum Higher Than Car Ca
(a) Complainant asked reparation on
a carload of hay shipped from Brainerd
Minn., to Tampa, Fla., because charges
were assessed upon a minimum weight
of 20,000 Ibs., although the car was
loaded to its utmost capacity and con-
tained but 16,500 Ibs. Complainant
did not appear at the hearing. No
witnesses testified in his behalf, and
he presented no documentary evidence
to prove the averment of his petition,
the exact amount of the freight charges
paid or that the car was properly load-
ed. Defendants denied that the minimum
was unreasonable, and their witness
testified that complainant ordered a car
of the size which was tendered to him
for this shipment. HELD, upon con-
sideration of all the facts of record the
minimum carload weight under which
the shipments moved was not unrea-
sonable. Complaint dismissed. Rich-
ards v. N. P. Ry. Co., 21 I. C. C. 468.
(b) Where the carrier's regulations
restrict the loading capacity of a car
to less than its rated minimum, it is
unreasonable to assess charges on such
minimum, but it should be on the actual
weight. Oregon Lumber Co. v. O. R. R.
& N. Co., 19 I. C. C. 582.
(c) A carload minimum for light and
bulky articles like furniture should be
such that the minimum can ordinarily
be loaded, but the minimum is not
necessarily unreasonable because it oc-
casionally happens that cars, although
loaded to their full physical capacity,
will not contain it. Montague & Co.
v. A. T. & S. F. Ry. Co., 17 I. C. C.
(d) Complainant shippers attacked
the various minima on furniture from
eastern points of origin to Pacific coast
terminals. The minima 'attacked and the
rates were as follows: Wooden man-
tels, 16,000 Ibs., $1.50; steel bath tubs,
10,000 Ibs., $2.40; furniture, new, all
kinds, 12,000 Ibs., $2.20; bedroom fur-
niture, 20,000 Ibs. $1.50; iron and brass
beds, 30,000 Ibs., $1.10; folding beds,
20,000 Ibs., $1.50; mattresses and
springs, 20,000 Ibs., $1.10; chairs and
chair stock, 20,000 Ibs., $1.50; tables
24,000 Ibs., $1.50. Furniture is light
and bulky as compared with most other
kinds of freight. The weight of furni-
ture possible to load into a car varies
with the kind and grade, cheap furni-
ture weighing less than that of higher
grade. The weight capable of being
loaded into a car depends on the form
of the article and whether or not pre-
sented for shipment in knocked down
form. It also varies with the skill of
the loader. The expense of transporting
a car containing 20,000 Ibs. of furniture
was not much greater than that of car-
rying the same car containing but
10,000 Ibs. It was, therefore, to the
Interest of the carrier that cars be
loaded as heavily as possible. No dis-
tinction was made in the tariffs estab-
lishing the minima attacked between
cars of different lengths, whereas in
point of fact the cars actually used
varied greatly in loading capacity. The
great majority of all cars used were
40 ft. in length. Complainant contended
that any minimum which could not be
invariably loaded into the car furnished
with proper care upon the part of the
shipper, was unlawful. HELD, the true
rule was that the minimum should not
exceed what could ordinarily be loaded
with proper care and skill; that apply-
ing this principle the minima on wood
mantels and iron and brass beds of 16,-
000 and 30,000 Ibs., respectively, were un-
reasonable and should be reduced to
14,000 and 24,000 Ibs., respectively, but
that the minima on steel bath tubs, bed-
room furniture, folding beds, mattresses
and springs, chairs and chair stock and
tables should not be disturbed, said
ruling to be applicable to cars of 40
feet in length. Carriers authorized to
establish a sliding scale of minima for
cars of other lengths. Reparation
awarded on shipments of wood mantels
between the points in question in 40-ft.
cars on the basis of a 14,000 Ibs. mini-
mum, charges being assessed on a 16,-
000 Ibs. minimum, and on shipments in
50-ft. cars on the basis of a 17,500 Ibs.
minimum, the charges being assessed
on a 20,000 Ibs. minimum; reparation
also awarded on shipments of brass beds
between the points in question on the
basis of a 24,000 Ibs. minimum, the
charges being assessed on a 30,000 Ibs.
minimum. Montague & Co. v. A. T. &
S. F. Ry. Co., 17 I. C. C. 72, 76, 78-84.
MINIMUMS, 5 (e) 7 (c)
(e) The minimum should never ex-
ceed the capacity of the car. Ozark
Fruit Growers' Ass'n v. St. L. & S. F.
R. R. Co., 16 I. C. C. 106, 109.
(f) It is improper for carriers to
regulate the amount of freight charges
by prescribing minima which manifestly
cannot be loaded. Indianapolis Freight
Bureau v. C. C. C. & St. L. Ry. Co.,
15 I. C. C. 504, 527.
(g) Where a tariff provides that the
minimum weight shall be the marked
capacity of the car, a shipper of a car-
load weighing less than such marked
capacity cannot demand reparation on
the basis of the actual weight of the
shipment. Cedar Hill Coal & Coke
Co. v. C. & S. Ry. Co., 14 I. C. C.
(h) Reparation denied on shipment
of baled straw, as car could have been
loaded to the prescribed minimum.
Richmond Co. v. G'. T. Ry. Co. of Can.,
Unrep. Op. 161.
(i) Minimum weight on washing-
machine tubs should not exceed actual
weight. Reparation awarded. Thistle
Mfg. Co. v. C. M. & St. P. Ry. Co.,
Unrep. Op. 299.
6. Mixed Carloads.
See Classification, 7.
(a) Complainant attacked the mixed
carload rule of the defendant which
provided that the deficit in minimum
should be added to the weight of the
highest rated article in the shipment.
HELD, that the rule is unreasonable in
the requirement that "when the ag-
gregate weight of a mixed carload ship-
ment does not amount to 20,000 Ibs.
add to the weight of the highest rated
article in the shipment sufficient to
make minimum weight of 20,000 Ibs."
and that in lieu of this requirement
the rule should provide that when the
aggregate weight of a mixed carload
shipment does not amount to 20,000 Ibs.,
there should be added to the weight of
the heaviest loaded article in the ship-
ment sufficient to make minimum weight
of 20,000 Ibs., except that when the ship-
ment consists of two or more articles of
equal weight, the weight sufficient to
make the minimum weight of 20,000 Ibs.
should be added to the weight of the low-
est rated article. Ponchatoula Farmers'
Ass'n v. I. C. R. R. Co., 19 I. C C 513 520
(b) A minimum was assessed on
each of two kinds of grain in one car
separated by a bulkhead, the tariff pro-
viding for the mixed carload rate only
when all but one of the grains were
sacked. Rule amended and reparation
ordered on shipment made. Hewitt &
Connor v. C. & N. W. Ry. Co., 16 I.
C. C. 431.
See Evidence, 63 (a), (e) ; Long and
Short Hauls, 10 (u); Reasonable-
ness of Rates, 84 (aa); Repara-
tion, 16 (uuuu); Through Routes
and Joint Rates, 15 (m); Weights
and Weighing, 10 (b), (c), (f).
(a) Proposed minimum of 30,000
Ibs. upon potatoes originating in Louisi-
ana and Texas and applying from St.
Louis, Mo., to points east of the Illinois-
Indiana state line, held unreasonable, it
appearing that the Texas and Louisiana
potato is extremely perishable, possesses
little keeping qualities, and requires the
exercise of great care in loading to
insure the best possible ventilation and
the least possible pressure from the
weight of one sack upon or against
another. Minimum* of 24,000 Ibs. pre-
scribed, it appearing that these po-
tatoes cannot be safely loaded to a
greater weight. In Re Rates for Trans-
portation of Potatoes, 23 I. C. C. 69.
(b) Complainants attacked the rea-
sonableness of the minimum weight on
grapes in baskets of 24,000 Ibs. from
Rochester, Albion and Appleton, N. Y.,
to Columbia, S. C. Under the rate
of 79c the per car revenue was $189.60.
No evidence was introduced bearing
upon the reasonableness of the rate or
the per car charge. HELD, the con-
tinuous increase in the volume of
traffic has necessitated the construc-
tion of cars of greater capacity and
the Commission is reluctant to reduce
a minimum weight unless it may be
done with substantial justice to all
parties, and as the question of the
rate is not involved, it does not seem
expedient to reduce the existing mini-
mum upon the record presented. Du-
Pre Co. v. B. R. & P. Ry. Co., 23 I.
. C. 226, 228.
(c) Complainant alleged that the
rates charged by defendants for the
transportation of sheep and cattle
! rom California points to Tacoma and
Seattle, Wash., and the rules pertain-
ng to the shipment of sheep in double-
deck cars were unjust, unreasonable,
MINIMUMS, 7 (cc) (g)
and unduly discriminatory. A general
rule in the tariff provided that where
double-deck cars are ordered and single
cars are furnished instead, the rate
provided for the cars used is charged.
Under a special rule it was provided
that where two single-deck cars are
furnished the charge therefor would
be on the basis of a double-deck
car or 170 per cent of the single-deck
car rate. Tingle-deck stock cars are
available for shipments of lumber, coal,
and other commodities, while double-
deck cars cannot be so used to good
advantage, and are therefore not of
such general utility. On a 36-foot car
from San Francisco to Portland the rate
on cattle would be $120.95; on sheep
double-deck cars $155.46, single-deck
cars $91.45, and fresh meat, 25,000
pounds at 41c plus $50 refrigeration,
$152.50. An exhibit filed by defendant
shows that the rates are generally
lower to Portland on both cattle and
sheep than from similar distances
into San Francisco, although the oper-
ating conditions are more favorable to
the San Francisco movement than over
the Shasta route to Portland. HELD,
the tariff provisions are conflicting,
but that so long as defendants have
provisions in their tariffs for the use
of double-deck cars, the tariffs should
provide that where a double-deck car
is ordered and two single-deck cars
are furnished charges will be assessed
on the basis of the rate provided for
the double-deck car ordered, and that
the rates per se are not unjust or un-
duly discriminatory. Cars.tens Packing
Co. v. S. P. Co., 23 I. C. C. 236, 237,
(cc) The rule providing for a mini-
mum charge of 5,000 Ibs. on first-class
rate upon an article too large to be
loaded through the side door or too
long to be loaded through the end win-
dow of a 36-ft. box car or stock car
found to be unreasonable and unjustly
discriminatory. Rule, providing that
when articles are loaded on open cars
on account of being too large or too
long to be loaded through the side door
of a closed car shall be charged a mini-
mum of 5,000 Ibs. at the first-class
rate, prescribed. Brunswick-Balke-Col-
lender Co. v. A. T. & S. F. Ry. Co., 23
I. C. C. 395.
(d) Defendant maintained a mini-
mum carload weight on lumber from
southeastern Georgia points to Jackson-
ville, Fla., of 24,000 Ibs. and on cross-
ties of 32,000 Ibs. HELD, the mainte-
nance of a higher mimimum on cross-
ties than contemporaneously maintained
on lumber is unreasonable. Reparation
awarded. Baxter & Co. v. G. S. & F.
Ry. Co., 21 I. C. C. 647, 649.
(e) Where apples are given a lower
rate than other deciduous fruits they
are subject to high minimum weights.
Stacy & Sons v. O. S. L. R. R. Co., 20
I. C. C. 136, 137.
(f) Complainants attacked the mini-
mum weight on peaches from Georgia
to markets east of the Mississippi and
north of the Ohio and Potomac rivers
in refrigerator cars of 22,500 Ibs.,
which compelled complainants to load
peach crates five tiers high. HELD,
that the ordinary refrigeration method
will not perfectly cool the two top
tiers because Georgia peaches are
picked and packed in very hot weather
and moved through hot regions of the
country; that the proper method of
shipping these peaches would be to
pre-cool the crates before loading into
the car; that comparisons cannot be
made with the transportation of Cali-
fornia peaches (these peaches being
cooled by exposure to the cool night
air or in pre-cooling stations, and sub-
ject to a cool mountain haul shortly
after moving), nor in the northern
states where there is a short haul.
Complaint dismissed. Georgia Fruit
Exchange v. S. Ry. Co., 20 I. C.
(g) Complainant made a shipment
of wooden buggy bodies in the white,
weighing less than 18,000 Ibs., Moline,
111., to Kalamazoo, Mich., via C. M. &
St. P. and L. S. & M. S. R. Rs. under