Copyright
Thomas Johnson Michie.

A treatise on the law of carriers (Volume 4) online

. (page 119 of 214)
Online LibraryThomas Johnson MichieA treatise on the law of carriers (Volume 4) → online text (page 119 of 214)
Font size
QR-code for this ebook


tending from a connection with the tracks
of a belt line railroad company to and
around its buildings, and used in loading
cars for shipment, are not a part of the
railroad system, but plant facilities, and
the refunding by a railroad company
which made and published a schedule of
through rates, including the belt line
charge, of $1 per car to such packing
company on shipments made by it and
paid for at the schedule rate, on the
ground that it was a payment for the use
of such private tracks, constituted the
s-iving of a rebate, in violation of § 1 of
Elkins Act February 19, 1903, c. 708, 32
Stat. 847 [U. S. Comp. St. Supp. 1907, p.
880]. Judgment, 156 Fed. 558, 84 C. C. A.
324, 26 L. R. A., N. S., 551, affirmed in
Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. United States,
212 U. S. 563, 53 L. Ed. 653, 29 S. Ct. 689.

33. Discrimination between shippers. —
Union I'ac. R. Co. v. L'pdike (^rain Co.,
222 U. S. 215, 56 E. Ed. 171, 32 S. Ct. 39.



§§ 4120-4121 CARRIERS. 3732

Where Allowance Amounts to Rebate.— The allowance by a railroad com-
pany to certain coal companies shipping over its line of a stated sum per ton
ostensibly for the use of trackage owned by such companies and the service of
their own locomotives in hauling cars thereon from the rate charged plaintiff,
which was also a shipper in the same district under similar circumstances, is
an unlawful discrimination in violation of interstate commerce.-"-*

Shipper Connected with Transportation. — As used in the act providing;
that a shipper rendering service "connected with" the transportation may be
paid therefor by the carrier, the phrase quoted is a synonym of "a part of it ;"
it does not mean something in addition to transportation that touches or is at-
tached to transportation. ^s

§ 4121. For Elevation of Grain. — The long-mooted question as to whether
elevation was such a part of transportation as to bring it within the jurisdiction
cf the interstate commerce commission was answered by the Act of Ji^me 29,
1906, in which congress declared that the term transportation shall include all
facilities of shipment, irrespective of ownership, and all services in connection
with the elevation and transfer in transit and handling of property transported.
Carriers were recjuired to provide and furnish such transportation upon rea-
sonable request therefor. The act recognized that the shipper himself might
own the elevator or other facility included within the definition of transporta-
tion and provides, that if the owner renders any service connected with such
transportation, or furnishes any instrumentality used therein, the charge and
allowance therefor shall be no more than is just and reasonable, the commis-
sion being authorized to determine what is reasonable. In pursuance of the
authority thus expressly conferred, the interstate commerce commission, iixed
the allowance for elevating grain at three- fourths of a cent per hundred pounds,
being actual cost, with no allowance whatever for profit. ^^ Its final order pro-
hibiting any payment to the owner who performed this transportation serv-
ice,^'^ was reversed, as being beyond the jurisdiction of the commission, because
congress had expressly permitted such payment to be made.^^ An order for-
bidding the carrier to allow or pay to the owner of an elevator any compensation
for elevation in transit of grain which he ships, unless he refuses to clean, clip,
mix, inspect, or grade the wheat while it is passing through the elevator, is
beyond the power of the commission. "^■'

Where Allowance Amounts to Discrimination. — The interstate commerce
commission has decided that the allowance or payment by a railroad company
to an elevator company of any compensation for the elevation and transfer in
tiansit of grain which it shipped and owned was unlawful where it derived, or
might derive, a commercial advantage from cleaning, clipping, mixing, grading,
and inspecting the grain during its elevation, and where there was danger that
such a practice might lead the parties to it to violate the prohibition of rebates
and of unjust discrimination embodied in the interstate commerce act."*" A

34. Where allowance amounts to re- dike Grain Co., 222 U. S. 215, 56 L. Ed-
bate.— Act Feb. 4, 1887, c. 104, § 2, 24 Stat. 171, 32 S. Ct. 39.

379 (U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 3155) ; Mitch- Order of the commission prohibiting-

ell Coal, etc., Co. v. Pennsylvania R. Co., allowance or payment by carriers of com-

181 Fed. 403, dismissed for want of juris- pensation to owners and operators of ele-

diction 183 Fed. 908. vators for elevation and transfer in transit

35. Shipper connected with transporta- are beyond the delegated power of the
tion. — \ew York, etc., R. Co. v. General commission. Peavey & Co. v. Union Pac>
Elect. Co., 146 N. Y. S. 322, 83 Misc. Rep. R. Co., 176 Fed. 409.

529. 39. Peavey & Co. v. Union Pac. R. Co.,.

36. Owner of elevator. — 12 Inters. Com. 176 Fed. 409.

Rep. (U. S.), 86. 40. Where allowance amounts to dis-

37. 14 Inters. Com. Rep. (U. S.), 315. crimination. — In re Allowances to Eleva-

38. Interstate Commerce Comm. v. tors (U. S.), 12 Interst. Com. R. 85. 88;
Diffenbaugh, 222 U. S. 42. 56 L. Ed. 83, S. C. (U. S.), 14 Interst. Com. Com'n R,
32 S. Ct. 22; Union Pac. R. Co. v. Up- 315, 316.



2>72>?>



inti;rstate commerce act.



§ 4121



contract by which an interstate railroad company agreed to pay an elevator
company a certain amount a car for grain originating on its line and passing
through the elevator, not allowed to all elevators, nor covered by a filed and pub-
lished rate schedule, is void."*^

Where Grain Weighed, etc. — A carrier can not refuse the allowance for
elevator service on through grain in car loads at terminal points to elevator
owners who, through ownership of the grain, derive an incidental advantage by
using the opportunity afforded during the process of elevation to weigh, store,
inspect, clean, mix, or otherwise treat the grain, in view of the provisions of Act
June 29, 1906, recognizing that services in transportation, rendered by an owner
of the property transported, are to be paid for by the carrier.'*- The interstate
commerce commission can not make the allowance by a carrier to the owner of
an elevator of the cost of the elevation in transit of grain in which he has an
interest, conditional upon his failure to use the opportunity afforded during the
process of elevation to treat, weigh, inspect, or mix the grain, since such al-
lowance can not be deemed an undue preference or discrimination.-*"

Where Car Detained. — A carrier may make its allowance for elevator serv-
ice on through grain in carloads at terminal points at elevators located on the
lines of other carriers, as well as those located along its own tracks, conditional
upon the return of the empty car to the carrier within forty-eight hours after
delivery to the elevator, where such car can be unloaded and returned in a much
shorter time.^'* But a carrier can not enforce a rule making its allowance for
elevator service on through grain in carloads at terminal ])oints conditional upon
the return of the empty car to the carrier within forty-eight hours after de-
livery to the elevator, so as to defeat the right to compensation for elevator
service rendered at elevators located on the lines of other railroads, where the
return of the cars to the carrier was made impossible by the rules of a rail-
way association of which the carrier was a member, and over which the elevator
owners had no control, no such impossibility existing if the elevator was one of
those located along the carrier's tracks. ^-^



41. Elwood Grain Co. v. St. Joseph, etc.,
R. Co., 302 Fed. S4.5, 121 C. C. A. 153.

42. Where grain weighed, etc. — Union
Pac. R. Co. V. Updike Grain Co., 222 U.
S. 215, 50 L. Ed. 171, 32 S. Ct. 39, affirm-
ing judgment 178 Fed. 223. 101 C. C. A.
583.

43. Interstate Commerce Comm. v. Dif-
fenljaugh, 222 U. S. 42, 56 L. Ed. 83, 32 S.
Ct. 22, modifying decree Peavey & Co. v.
Union Pac. R. Co., 17G Fed. 409.

44. Where car detained. — Union Pac.
R. Co. c'. Updike Grain Co., 222 U. S. 215,
56 L. Ed. 171, 32 S. Ct. 39.

Complainants returned, more than 48
hours after their delivery to connecting
lines, certain cars, and the Union Pacific
Company refused to pay them compensa-
tion for elevating the grain out of these
cars. The delay in the return of these
cars was due to the companies having
connecting lines to whom the cars were
delivered by the Union Pacific Company
l)y direction of the complainants or con-
signors to the complainants, and the
Union Pacific Company paid no elevation
charges to Peavey & Co. on grain un-
loaded from cars which were not returned
to the Union Pacific Company within 48
hours. Held, that there was no unjust
discrimination shown, and complainants



were not entitled to damages because they
received no compensation for elevation
services in connection with such cars.
Union Pac. R. Co. v. Updike Grain Co.,
178 Fed. 223, 101 C. C. A. 583.

45. Union Pac. R. Co. v. Updike Grain
Co., 222 U. S. 215, 56 L. Ed. 171, 32 S.
Ct. 39.

The tariffs of a railroad company of-
fered compensation for elevation of grain
in transit on condition that cars delivered
by it loaded to elevators or connecting
lines should be returned to it empty
within forty-eight hours. The regula-
tions provided that foreign cars, cars be-
longing to the companies which had a
direct connection with the switching ter-
ritory, sliould be delivered to their own-
ers so that the complainants, who were
owners of elevators upon railroad tracks
ntlier than those of the railroad company,
could not possibly return such cars to
that company, while a third person, which
had an elevator on the railroad tracks,
could deliver such cars immediately after
they were unloaded, and the railroad paid
it compensation for elevating the grain
unloaded from those cars, while it refused
to pay complainants any compensation for
unloading cars of like character. This
created an unjust discrimination against



§§ 4121-4124 carrie;rs. 3734

Elevation in Transit. — The interstate commerce commission decided that
all allowances and payments to owners and operators of elevators for elevation
in transit were unlawful and must cease>« Thereupon it issued orders which
forbade the continuance of such allowances and payments.^'^ Elevation in
Transit consists in the unloading of the cars which bring the grain to the ele-
vator and the loading of the grain into those which carry it away.^s

Reshipment of Goods in Particular Time. — Confining the allowance by
a carrier to the owner of an elevator for elevating grain in transit in which he
has an interest, to such grain as shall be reshipped within ten days, is within
the power of the interstate commerce commission.-*^

Determining Validity. — Whether a railroad company's contract to pay an
elevator company so much for each car on grain received by the elevator com-
pany and passing through the elevator is contrary to the Interstate Commerce
Act should be determined as of the date of the service.-^f*

§ 4122. For Construction of Grain Doors for Cars.— Where a carrier
receiving grain and produce in bulk failed to furnish cars with grain doors or
lumber for so equipping them, the shipper was entitled to recover the cost of
lumber used in so equipping them.^i jn ^n action to recover from the defend-
ant railway company the necessary costs of the labor, lumber, and material used
in constructing grain doors for box cars used in transporting grain from Cook,
Neb., to Kansas City, Mo., held, that the answer of the defendant company
that the interstate commerce commission had made a rule to the efifect that the
carrier might not lawfully reimburse shippers for the expense incurred in at-
taching grain doors to box cars, unless expressly so provided in its tariff, and
that there was no such provision in the tariff of the defendant company at the
time the doors were so furnished (though afterwards one was adopted), and
therefore that the defendant company was not liable, failed to state any de-
fense. ^^^ '

§ 4123. For Cartage. — The cartage of sugar from a refinery to cars does
not constitute transportation, nor a service connected with transportation, within
such act, for which the carrier is justified in making such allowance.-"'^ A car-
rier may lawfully grant shippers of coal doing their own hauling to the station
a reasonable allowance from the published tariff, which, though naming the rate
as from the station to the destination, is uniformly construed to include the
haul from the mine.^^

§ 4124. For Lighterage. — The fact that the owner of a terminal is paid
as such for handling and lightering his own product, after it had become the
property of a purchaser by delivery to the carrier at such terminal, does not con-
stitute the giving of a rebate, in the absence of any evidence that it is a device

complainants which entitled them to re- 50. Determining validity.— Elwood Grain

cover damages. Union Pac. R. Co. v. Co. v. St. Joseph, etc., R. Co., 121 C. C.

Updike Grain Co., 101 C. C. A. 583, 178 A. 153, 203 Fed. 845. ^ . ^

Fed. 223, affirmed in 222 U. S. 215, 56 L- 51. For construction of gram doors for

Ed 171 32 S Ct 39. cars. — Loomis v. Lehigh Valley R. Co.,

46. Elevation in transit.— Traffic Bureau 208 N. Y. 312, 101 N. E. 907, modifying
Merchants' Exch. v. Chicago, etc., R. Co. judgment 132 N. Y. S. 138, 147 App. Div.
<U. S.), 14 Interst. Com. Com'n R. 317. ''95.

47. Union Pac. R. Co. v. Updike Grain 52. Hanks v. Missouri Pac. R. Co., 92
Co., 178 Fed. 223, 101 C. C. A. 583. Neb. 594, 138 N. W. 750.

48. Union Pac. R. Co. v. Updike Grain 53. Cartage of sugar from refinery to
Co.. 178 Fed. 223, 101 C. C. A. 583. car.— American Sugar Refin. Co. v. Dela-

49. Reshipment of goods in particular ware, etc., R. Co., 200 Fed. 652.
time.— Interstate Commerce Comm. v. 54. Mitchell Coal, etc.. Co. v. Pennsyl-
Diffenbaugh, 222 U. S. 42, 56 L. Ed. 83, vania R. Co., 33 S. Ct. 916, 230 U. S. 247,
32 S. Ct. "22, modifying decree Peavey & 57 L. Ed. 1472, modifying judgment 183
Co. V. Union Pac. R. Co., 176 Fed. 409. Fed. 908.



5735



INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT.



§§ 4124-4125



for that purpose ; nor does it constitute the giving of an undue and unreasona-
ble preference or advantage, as to another shipper, to shipments outside of the
lighterage limits.^''

Free Lighterage Zone. — Interstate trunk railway companies having their
terminals on the Xew Jersey shore of New York harbor, having estabHshed a
zone within which they perform Hghterage service without additional charge,,
may pay reasonable compensation on tonnage basis to owners of water front
within such zone operating a sugar refinery for maintenance of a public freight
terminal station and for lightering, w^ithout allowing similar compensation to
sugar refiners whose plant is situated some ten miles beyond the free lighterage
zone ; the compensation made being a proper allowance under Act Tnne 29,.
1906, and not an illegal preference within § 3 of the Act of Feb. 4. 1887'.^"^

§§ 4125-4145. Printing and Publishing Schedules— § 4125. In Gen-
eral. — ^The act declares that every common carrier subject to the act shall
file with the interstate commerce commission and print, post, and keep open to
public inspection schedules showing rates, fares, and charges for transporta-
tion between different points on its own route and points on the route of any
other carrier by railroad, etc.''" That the act imposes upon common carriers
subject to its provisions the duty of establishing in a prescribed mode the rates,
whether individual or joint, to be charged for the transportation in interstate
commerce of property over their lines, and that the rates so established are ob-
ligatory alike upon carrier and shipper, and must be strictly observed by both
until changed in the mode prescribed, are propositions which are not only plainly
stated in the act, but settled by repeated decisions of the federal supreme court. •''^

What Amounts to Publication. — Freight rates required to be established
by carriers, according to the provisions of the interstate commerce law are not
established by tariffs naming class rates that do not contain a classification of



55. For lighterage. — Baltimore, etc.. R.
Co. V. United States. 200 Fed. 779.

The fact that the owners of a terminal
are paid as such for handling and lighter-
ing their own product, after it had become
the property of the purchasers by deliv-
ery to the carrier at such terminal, did
not constitute the giving of a rebate in
violation of Interest Commerce Act Feb.
4, 1887, c. 104, § 2, 24 Stat. 379 (U. S-
Comp. St. 1901, p. 3155), in the absence
of any evidence that it was a device for
that purpose; nor did it constitute the
giving of an undue and unreasonable pref-
erence or advantage over respondent com-
pany, within § 3. because petitioners did
not pay for the lighterage of respondent's
shipments, since they were not in fact
made from a point within the lighterage
limits, the device of having the lighters
stop on the way from Yonkers at a place
within such limits, where respondent had
no terminal facilities and made no tender
of delivery, being a mere subterfuge,
which gave it no legal or equitable claim
to be a shipper from there. Baltimore,
etc.. R. Co. V. United States, 200 Fed. 779.

56. Free lighterage zone.— Sugar refiners
whose plant is situated ten miles beyond
the limit of free lighterage zone, estab-
lished on the river front of Greater New
York by interstate trunk railroads, whose
freight terminals are at the New Jersey
shore of New York harbor, are not en-



titled to compensation from the railway
companies under Act June 29, 1906. for
li.ghtering their sugar from the refinery to
llieir terminals. United States v. Balti-
more, etc.. R. Co., 231 U. S. 274, 34 S.
Ct. 75.

57. Printing and publishing schedules.^
Interstate Commerce Act Feb. 4, 1887, c.
104. § 6, 24 Stat. 380 (U. S. Comp. St.
1901, p. 3156), as amended by Act June
29, 1906, c. 3591, § 2, 34 Stat. 586 (U. S.
Comp. St. Supp. 1909, p. 1153).

58. United States v. Miller, 223 U. S.
599, 56 L. Ed. 568, 32 S. Ct. 323. See
Interstate Commerce Comm. v. Brimson,
154 U. S. 447, 38 L. Ed. 1047. 14 S. Ct.
1125; Gulf, etc.. R. Co. v. Hefley, 158 U.
S. 98, 39 L. Ed. 910, 15 S. Ct. 802; United
States V. Trans-Missouri Freight Ass'n,
166 U. S. 290, 41 L. Ed. 1007, 17 S. Ct.
540; Interstate Commerce Comm. v. Cin-
cinnati, etc., R. Co., 167 U. S. 479, 42 L.
Ed. 243, 17 S. Ct. 896; Savannah, etc., R.
Co. V. Florida Fruit Exch., 167 U. S. 512.
42 L. Ed. 257, 17 S. Ct. 998; Parsons v.
Chicago, etc., R. Co., 167 U. S. 447, 42
L. Ed. 231, 17 S. Ct. 887; Interstate Com-
merce Comm. V. Detroit, etc., R. Co., 167
U. S. 633, 42 L. Ed. 306, 17 S. Ct. 986;
Texas, etc., R. Co. v. Cisco Oil Mill, 204
U. S. 449, 51 L. Ed. 562, 27 S. Ct. 358;
Texas, etc., R. Co. v. Abilene Cotton Oil
Co., 204 U. S. 426, 51 L. Ed. 553, 27 S.
Ct. 350, 9 Am. & Eng. Ann. Cas. 1075.



§§ 4125-4126 CARRiijRs. 3736

freight, but merely refer to a classification published by other parties and sub-
ject to change by such parties. A departure by a shipper from such rates does
not constitute an offense under the Act Feb. 19, 1903.-''^ A carrier filed with the in-
terstate commission a schedule of rates, called "Official Classification," and
also a rate sheet, called "Joi^t East-Bound Interstate Tariff." The former
stated specifically the rates under its uniform bill of lading, which limits its
common-law liability as a carrier, and further stated that the rates on property
not shipped subject to the uniform bill of lading were a specified percentage
higher than the rates under said bill. The rate sheet stated that all rates were
to be used in connection with, and subject to, the official classification. This
was a making and establishing of schedules of rates both under the uniform bill
of lading, and also under the full common-law liability.*"''^

A railway company operating, as lessee upon the basis of a division of
profits, the railroad system owned by a stockyard company for the transportation
of cars to and from trunk lines in the course of their transportation from be-
yond the state, and to points outside of the state, is an interstate carrier within
the meaning of the Interstate Commerce Act of February 4, 1887, and as such
is obliged to file its tariffs with the interstate commerce commission, as re-
quired by that act.*"'^

A corporation organized for the purpose of maintaining a stockyard,
with the usual facilities of such yards as to loading and unloading and caring
for freight, which lawfully owns and operates a railroad system for the trans-
portation of cars to and from trunk lines, in the course of their transportation
from beyond the state and to points outside of the state, is an interstate railway
carrier, within the meaning of the Interstate Commerce Act of February 4, 1887,
and as such is obliged to file its tariff's with the Interstate Commerce Commis-
sion, as required by that act.*'-

§ 4126. Statutory Provision,- — The Interstate Commerce Act provides that
every com.mon carrier subject to the provisions of this act shall print and keep
open to public inspection schedules showing the rates and fares and charges for
the transportation of passengers and property which any such common carrier
has established and which arc in force at the time upon its route.*^^

Constitutionality of Statute. — The mere incidental effect upon exports
which mav be produced by applying to a shipment from an interior point of the
United States to a foreign port the provisions of the Act of Feb. 19, 1903, mak-
ing it an offense against the United States to obtain the transportation of prop-
erty in interstate or foreign commerce at less than the carrier's published rates,
does not render such provisions repugnant to the constitution of the United
States, forbidding the levying of export taxes or duties.*''^ Preference is not
given to the ports of one state over those of another by applying to articles in-

59. What amounts to publication.— quired by § 6 of that act, by leasing its
United States v. Standard Oil Co., 170 railway and equipment to another corpo-
Fed. 988. ration upon the basis of a division of

60. Mannheim Ins. Co. v. Erie, etc., profits, both companies being under a
Transp. Co., 72 Minn. 357, 75 N. W. 602. common stock ownership, with its conse-

61. United States v. Union Stockyards, quent control. United States v. Union
etc., Co., 226 U. S. 286, 33 S. Ct. 83. Stockyards, etc., Co., 226 U. S. 286, 33

62. A stockyard company owning and S. Ct. 83.

operating under its charter a railway sys- 63. Statutory provision.— Act Feb. 4,

tern for the transportation of cars to and 1887, § 6, as amended by Act Mar. 2, 1889.

from trunk lines in the course of their 64. Constitutionality of statute.— Armour

transportation from beyond the state and Packing Co. v. United States, 209 U. S.

to points outside of the state did not 56, 52 L. Ed. 681, 28 S. Ct. 428, affirm-

cease to be an interstate railway carrier ing judgment, 153 Fed. 1, 82 C. C. A.

within the meaning of the Interstate Com- 135, 14 L. R. A., N. S., 400; Chicago, etc.,

nierce Act of February 4, 1887, and as R. Co. v. United States, 209 U. S. 90, 52

such obliged to file its tariffs within the L. Ed. 698, 28 S. Ct. 439, affirming judg-

interstate commerce commission, as re- ment, 157 Fed. 830.



^i??)! INTERSTATE. COMMERCE ACT. §§ 4126-4127

tended for foreign export the provisions of the Act of Feb. 19, 1903, making
it an offense against the United States to accept transportation of goods in in-
terstate or foreign commerce at less than the carrier's pubhshed rates.*'^

Relation to Provision against Discrimination. — There is not only a re-
lation, but an indissoluble unity between the provision for the establishment and
maintenance of rate until corrected in accordance with the statute and the prohi-
bitions against preferences and discriminations. This follows, because unless
the requirement of a uniform standard of rates be complied with, it would result
that violations of the statute as to preferences and discrimination would inevi-
tably follow.*^ ^ That the act to regulate commerce was intended to afford an
effective means for redressing the wrongs resulting from unjust discrimination
and undue preference is undoubted. Indeed, it is not open to controversy that



Online LibraryThomas Johnson MichieA treatise on the law of carriers (Volume 4) → online text (page 119 of 214)