Copyright
Thomas Johnson Michie.

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

. (page 122 of 214)
Online LibraryThomas Johnson MichieA treatise on the law of carriers (Volume 4) → online text (page 122 of 214)
Font size
QR-code for this ebook


ments, or arrangements, with other common carriers in relation to any traffic
afifected by the provisions of the act.^^ Such carriers are required to file with
the interstate commerce commission copies of their joint tariffs, which shall be
made public by the carriers when directed by the commission, in so far as in the
judgment of the commission it is deemed practicable, the commission being given
power to prescribe the measure of publicity to be given and the places in which
the joint tariffs shall be published. There is also a prohibition like the above
of any advance of such joint rates except after ten days' notice, or any reduction
except after three days' notice.^^ In a prosecution against certain interstate
carriers for shipping certain freight at a ten-cent rate, when the published and
filed rate was fifteen cents per hundredweight, evidence that the ten-cent rate
had been published by defendant's connections and sent "broadcast," though not
filed, was inadmissible as a matter of defense, since the charging of a rate less
than the filed rate constitutes a concession to the shipper, in violation of the act,,
as a matter of law.^^

Effect of Filing. — The mere filing of schedules of rates with the interstate
commerce commission raises no interference that the commission agrees to such
rates, or all the proposed conditions of shipment. ^'^ As the filing of schedules of
rates raises no inference that the interstate commerce commission agreed to them,
or the proposed conditions of shipment, the mere filing of a schedule by a railroad
company, in view of the fact that when the schedule was filed the Commission
had no authority to fix rates for future shipments, and no power to issue general
orders to carriers, and in view of the Interstate Commerce Act providing that the
initial carrier shall be liable for the negligence of any connecting carrier despite
any contract receipt rule, or regulation to the contrary, will not validate a condition
in such a schedule, limiting the carrier's liability for negligence by means of an
agreed valuation of the goods shipped, and thus abrogate the provision of a state
statute which makes such a contract void.-^^ Where a railroad company filed two
rates with the interstate commerce commission, the lower providing for an
agreed valuation of live stock shipped, which condition was invalid, under the
state law, for limiting the railroad company's liability for negligence, a decision
that the shipper might recover despite the condition, while giving him all the
benefits of the higher rate, is not erroneous in giving the shipper a less rate
than required by law, because of the filing of the schedule of rates with the inter-
state commerce commission, for the validity of the agreement limiting the car-
rier's liability for negligence can not be assumed to have been approved by the
commission, when invalid under the state law.-^^

34. Interstate Commerce Act, § 6, as States z: Merchants', etc., Transp. Co., 187
amended March 2, 1889. Interstate Com- Fed. 3fi3.

merce Comm. v. Brimson, 154 U. S. 447, 37. Effect of filing.— Cramer v. Chicago,
38 L. Ed. 1047, 14 S. Ct. 1125; Gulf, etc., etc., R. Co.. 153 Iowa 103, 133 N. W. 387.
R. Co. V. Hefley, 158 U. S. 98, 39 L. Ed. 38. Cramer v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 153
910, 15 S. Ct. 802; Parsons v. Chicago, etc., Iowa 103, 133 N. W. 387.
R. Co., 167 U. S. 447, 42 L. Ed. 231, 17 39. Cramer v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 153
S. Ct. 887; Interstate Commerce Comm. v. Iowa 103, 133 N. W. 387.
Cincinnati, etc., R. Co., 167 U. S. 479, 42 "We do not understand that the inter-
L. Ed. 243, 17 S. Ct. 896, affirmed and fol- state commerce commission approves and
lowed in Savannah, etc., R. Co. v. Florida adopts all rates and conditions contained
Fruit Exch., 167 U. S. 512, 42 L. Ed. 257, in any schedule of rates filed by a com-
17 S. Ct. 998. mon carrier. At the time when the ship-
Agreements with other carriers. — Inter- ment in question was made, the interstate
state Commerce Comm. v. Brimson, 154 commerce commission had no authority
U. S. 447, 459, 38 L. Ed. 1047, 14 S. Ct. to fix rates for future shipments. It did
1125. have power, however, to determine upon

35. Gulf, etc., R. Co. v. Hefley, 158 U. the reasonableness of rates, when that
S. 98, 39 L. Ed. 910, 15 S. Ct. 803. question was brought before it. Interstate

36. Published but not filed. — United Commerce Comm. v. Alabama Mid. R. Co.,



3749 INTKRSTATiv COMMKRCR ACT. §§ 4136-4137

§ 4136. Distributing in Offices of Agents.— Under the Interstate Com-
merce Act providing that a carrier, in order to establish an interstate rate, must
file the schedule with the interstate commerce commission and pubHsh the same,
the carrier, to prove the estabHshment of an interstate rate for a particular
station, is bound to prove that the printed schedule containing such rate had
been furnished to that station, or to the agent in charge thereof ; and proof that
a printed copy of the schedule containing the rate was furnished to the carrier's
depot and freight agent at another station, some six miles from the station in
question, was insufficient.^^

§ 4137. Construction of Schedule. — In construing classification sheets
the intent of the framers as to the meaning of words used when it can be ascer-
tained should be given effect, regardless of the intent of the shipper or of the
local usages relating to the meaning of terms used therein.'^i When the plaintiff
applied for cars for the transportation of oak cross ties, one of the defendant
carriers had a joint rate to certain points, including the destination of the ties,
applying to "lumber, car loads, all kinds." The other defendant carrier had a
similar rate on "lumber, all kinds," but neither carrier had a specific rate on
cross ties. "Lumber" being generally defined to include "any timber sawed or
split for use," whether by maul, wedge, or the use of machinery in a mill, any-
thing manufactured out of a log with saw, ax, maul, wedge, or machine, for
building houses, bridges, fences, or railroads, after the product leaves the log
for commercial use, it included the cross ties within such joint-rate schedules."*-
Showcases are "furniture" within the ordinary meaning of the word, which
governs in the construction of tariff schedules published for the information of

the public, and are included in a commodity rate on "furniture (new) all
kinds."^3

Agreement of Parties. — A carrier fixed certain rates for peaches in baskets
covered with gauze, and other rates for peaches in baskets with wood covers.
A shipper placed his peaches in gauze-covered baskets, and placed a layer of
baskets on the floor of a car. He then nailed cross-pieces to the upright posts,
and then laid a new floor on the crosspieces, just above the first tier of baskets,
and then placed another tier of baskets on the new floor, and so on to the top
of the car. It was held that he shipped his peaches in baskets covered with
gauze and the carrier was entitled to the higher rate, notwithstanding an agree-
ment with the agent for the lesser rate, on the theory that the peaches were
shipped in baskets with wood covers.^'*

168 U. S. 144, 18 S. Ct. 45, 42 L. Ed. 414; its schedule of rates and distribute them

Interstate Commerce Comm. v. Cincin- that shippers may have access to them

nati, etc., R. Co., 167 U. S. 479, 17 S. Ct. and ascertain their terms. Oregon R.,

896, 42 L. Ed. 243. But it had no power etc., Co. v. Thisler, 133 Pac. 539, 90 Kan. 5.'

to issue general orders in relation to car- The posting of copies of a carrier's

riers. Texas, etc., R. Co. v. Interstate schedule of rates at stations is not nec-

Commerce Comm., 162 U. S. 197, 16 S. essary to render a change in the rates ef-

Ct. 666, 40 L. Ed. 940." Cramer v. Chi- fective, it is necessary that the schedules

cago, etc., R. Co., 153 Iowa 103, 133 N. be distributed among the different stations

W. 387. at which it has effect, and merely filing

40. Distributing in offices of agents. — the schedules with the commission is not

Hunter v. St. Louis, etc., R. Co., 1G7 Mo. sufficient. Virginia-Carolina Peanut Co.

App. 624, 150 S. W. 733. "^- Atlantic, etc., R. Co. (N. C), 82 S. E. 1.

In order to establish an interstate 41. Construction of schedule. — Smith v.

freight rate, under the Interstate Com- Great Northern R. Co., 15 N. Dak. 195,

merce Act as it stood in 1908, the carrier 107 N. W. 56.

is bound to promulgate and distribute the 42. American, etc., Timber Co. v. Kan-
tariff in printed form in the offices of its sas, etc., R. Co., 175 Fed. 28.
agents. Hunter v. St. Louis, etc., R. Co., 43. Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Feintuch, 191
167 Mo. App. 624, 150 S. W. 733. Fed. 482.

Under Interstate Commerce Act, § 6, 44. Agreement of parties. — Houseman v.

3 carrier must file with the Commission Fargo, 124 N. Y. S. 1086.



§§ 4138-4139



CARRIERS.



3750



§§ 4138-4145. Operation and Effect of Schedules— § 4138. In Gen-
eral. — Where a carrier makes its schedules of rates and files them with the
interstate commerce commission, which approves and promulgates them as re-
quired by the Interstate Commerce Act both the carrier and shipper must ob-
serve them, and any known departure therefrom will subject them to a fine.^^
Where a commodity rate is named in a tarift' on a commodity and between speci-
fied points, the commodity rate is the lawful rate, though a class rate or some
combination may make a lower rate.-**' Where a tarifl: has been established on a
commodity for a through interstate shipment, as provided by the act, there can
be no departure therefrom unless made according to law.'*'^

Shipper's Right Therein. — Under the provisions of the Interstate Com-
merce Act which require railroad companies to adhere to their filed and pub-
lished rates, a shipper who delivers property for carriage has a contract right
to the rates and all privileges and facilities specified in the schedules then in
force. "^^

§§ 4139-4141. As Standard Charge— § 4139. In General.— It is now

the established rule that a carrier can not depart to any extent from its pub-
lished schedule of rates for interstate transportation on file without incurring
the penalties of the statute.-*^ Where a common carrier has established and
published its rates and charges in compliance with the provisions of the section
requiring that the schedule showing such rates shall be posted in every station
where freight is received it shall be unlaw^ful for the carrier to charge a greater
or less compensation than is specified in such published schedule of rates and
charges as may at the time be in force. •'^'* The Interstate Commerce Act pro-
vides for and prescribes a standard by comparison with which it may be deter-



45. Operation and effect of schedules. —

Boston, etc., Railroad v. Hooker, 233 U.
S. 97, 34 S. Ct. 526, citing Gulf, etc., R.
Co. V. Hefley, 158 U. S. 98, 39 L. Ed. 910,
15 S. Ct. 802; Texas, etc., R. Co. v.
Mugg-, 202 U. S. 242, 50 L. Ed. 1011, 26
vS. Ct. 628; Armour Packing Co. v. United
States, 209 U. S. 56, 52 L. Ed. 681, 28
S. Ct. 428; Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Mott-
ley, 219 U. S. 467, 55 U Ed. 297, 31 S.
Ct. 265, 34 U R. A., N. S., 671; Illinois
Cent. R. Co. v. Henderson Elevator Co.,
138 Ky. 220, 127 S. W. 779; Ford v. Chi-
cago, etc., R. Co. (Minn.), 143 N. W. 249;
Melody v. Great Northern R. Co., 25 S.
Dak. 606, 127 N. W. 543, Ann. Cas. 1912C,
727.

46. Pecos, etc., R. Co. v. Porter (Tex.
Civ. App.), 156 S. W. 267.

47. United States v. Pennsylvania R.
Co., 153 Fed. 625.

48. Shipper's right therein. — American
Sugar Refin. Co. v. Delaware, etc., R.
Co., 207 Fed. 733, reversing judgment on
rehearing 200 Fed. 652.

49. As standard charge. — United States.
— Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Mottley, 219
U. S. 467, 55 L. Ed. 297, 31 S. Ct. 265,
34 L. R. A., N. S., 671; Union Pac. R.
Co. V. Goodridge, 149 U. S. 680, 37 L- Ed.
896, 13 S. Ct. 970; Gulf, etc., R. Co. v.
Hefley, 158 U. S. 98, 39 L. Ed. 910, 15
S. Ct. 802; New York, etc., R. Co. v. In-
terstate Commerce Comm., 200 U. S. 361,
50 L. Ed. 515, 26 S. Ct. 272; 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; Great Northern
R. Co. V. O'Connor, 232 U S. 508, 34 S.
Ct. 380.

Kansas. — Christl v. Missouri Pac. R. Co.
(Kan.), 141 Pac. 587.

South Carolina. — Hardaway v. Southern
R. Co., 90 S. C. 475, 73 S. E. 1020, Ann.
Cas. 1913D, 266.

An interstate carrier can charge no
more and no less than the rate filed with
and approved by the interstate commerce
commission and published as the lawful
rate, and a greater or less charge can not
he justified on the ground of mistake.
Aldrich V. Southern R. Co., 79 S. E. 316,
95 S. C. 427.

50. Act Cong. Feb. 4, 1887, 24 Stat. 379,
c. 104, § 6, as amended by Act March 2,
1889, 25 Stat. 855, c. 382 (Interstate Com-
merce Act).

The act provides that when any com-
mon carrier shall have established and
published its rates, fares and charges in
compliance with the provisions of said
section, it shall be unlawful for such com-
mon carrier to charge, demand, collect or
receive from any person or persons a
greater or less compensation for the trans-
portation of passengers or property, or
for any services in connection therewith,
than is specified in such published sched-
ule of rates, fares and charges as may at
the time be in force. Interstate Com-
merce Act, § 6, as amended March 2,
1889. Gulf, etc.. R. Co. v. Hefley, 158 U.
S. 98, 39 L. Ed. 910, 15 S. Ct. 802.



3751 iNTERSTAxr; commerce act. § 4139

mined whether a given rate is or is not to be deemed unreasonable within the
meaning of the act; and that standard is the rate adopted, printed, and kept
posted, as required by the statute, by those engaged in the business, and subject
to the effects of free competition. Courts and juries can not resort to any other
standard. '^i Where the evidence showed that the rate as promulgated by the
interstate commerce commission had not been posted in the station at the ship-
ping point, and the carrier's agent there was not notified of its existence, but
acted on the tariff' sheet in his possession, contracting with reference thereto
to carry hay for a shipper, the carrier was liable in an action by the shipper
for charges in excess of such contract rate collected at the point of destination
at the rate specified in the new tariff.''-

Where Lesser Rate Contracted for. — If a rate quoted is less than the
schedule rate approved by the interstate commerce commission and published,
the shipper is liable for the full rate, whether he actually knows that the rate
quoted is less than the schedule rate or not.^'^ Where a freight rate has been
duly fixed by the interstate commerce commission and posted by a railroad com-
pany, a lesser rate contracted for between the shipper and a company, whether
intentional or through mistake, is not binding, and the company can hold the
freight until the legal rate is paid.^"*

Where Rate Not Known to Carrier. — In a prosecution of an interstate
carrier for shipping freight at a rate less than that filed with the interstate com-
merce commission, defendant could not be heard to say that it did not know of
the filed rate, which it had established in accordance with the law, as a justifica-
tion for its departure therefrom. •'^•'^

Hay and Old Hay. — An interstate commerce rate for "hay" prevents a con-
tract lor another rate for "old hay." ^^

Under Provision as to Rebates. — Where fruit was being shipped from
California to the eastern markets and several railroad companies published a
guaranteed through rate on such goods, taking advantage of this rate, the ship-
pers, at the end of the initial carrier's road, made agreements with the connect-
ing carriers, wdiereby they obtained rebates on routing the goods over the latter
roads ; but the initial carrier, in order to avoid this, reserved the right to route
the goods beyond its own lines, the court committed error in sustaining the
action of the interstate commerce commission in ordering the initial carriers to
desist from enforcing the new rule, as the payment of rebates was a violation of
the commerce act, and there is nothing in § 6 of the Interstate Commerce Act,
providing for the filing of through joint tariff" rates when agreed upon, to pre-
vent it. This statute should not be construed so as to prohibit a rule to prevent
the obtaining of rebates. '''^

Through and Local Rates. — Schedules of joint rates are required to be
filed with the commission. And when so filed it is unlawful to charge more or
less than is named therein. ^^'^ But this does not prevent the carrier from reserv-

51. Van Patten v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., tween the rate quoted and the tariff rate.
81 Fed. .545. Baldwin, etc., Land Co. v. Columbia, etc.,

52. Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Gardner (Tex. R. Co., r^H Ore. 285, 11-1 Pac. 469.

Civ. App.), 8G S. W. 793. 55. Where rate not known to carrier.—

53. Where lesser rate contracted for. — United v^tates z: Merchants', etc., Transp.
Baldwin, etc., Land Co. v. Columbia, etc., Co., 1ST J*"ed. ?^i]:i.

R. Co., 58 Ore. 285, 114 Pac. 469. 56. Hay and old hay.— Missouri, etc., R.

54. Sutton V. St. Louis, etc., R. Co., 159 Co. v. P.owles, 1 Ind. T. 250, 40 S. W. 899.
Mo. App. 685, 140 S. W. 76; Gerber v. 57. Under provision as to rebates. —
Wabash R. Co., 6.3 Mo. App. 145. Soutliern Pac. Co. r. Interstate Commerce

Where a carrier in good faith quoted on Comm., 200 U. S. 536, 50 L. Ed. 585, 26

an interstate shipment of sheep a lower S. Ct. 330.

rate than the tariff rate, and then dc- 58. Schedule of joint rates. — Interstate

manded the schedule rate before shipment Commerce Act, § 6, as amended March 6,

commenced, which was paid, it was not 1889. Gulf, etc., R. Co. v. Hefley, 158 U.

liable to the shipper for the difference be- S. 98, 39 L. Ed. 910, 15 S. Ct. 802; Inter-



§§ 4139-4140 CARRIERS. 3752

ing the right to route goods beyond his line, when necessary to break up rebat-
ing by connecting carriers.^*^ Where it appeared that local freight rates had
been filed with the interstate commerce commission, but there was no proof
that no through rate had been filed, an agreement by a carrier to transport at a
rate less than the local rates was not shown to be illegal, though, if no through
rate had been filed, the local rate would control. *^*^

Where Goods Reshipped. — All goods otTered for shipment at a certain point
must be carried at the established rate for such goods from such point, whether
the shipment originates there or is delivered from a connecting carrier for re-
shipment.*^^

Demurrage and Storage Charges. — Where a carrier gave notice of the
arrival of freight before it had so placed the cars that the freight could be deliv-
ered to the consignees, and thereafter attempted to charge storage while the
cars remained in its possession as the carrier, in addition to the freight rates
it was authorized to charge under its published tariffs, there was a willful vio-
lation of the provisions of the Interstate Commerce Act, providing that no car-
rier shall charge, demand, or collect different compensation for service than the
rates specified in the tariff filed. ^-

Damages for Charge in Excess of Schedule. — A shipper, who is charged
by a railroad company on an interstate shipment a rate in excess of that estab-
lished by the company and filed with the interstate commerce commission, is in-
jured by such unlawful rate within the meaning of the Interstate Commerce
Act without regard to the question of its reasonableness, and under § 16 the
interstate commerce commission has power to make an award of damages there-
for which may be enforced by action in a circuit court. ^^

Proceedings to Attack Schedule Rate. — The shipper has the right, by ap-
propriate proceedings, to attack the rate or the classification and if either or
both are held to be unreasonable can secure appropriate relief either by repara-
tion order, or by suit in court, after such finding of unreasonableness. But so
long as the tariff rate, based on value, remains operative it is binding upon the
shipper and carrier alike and is to be enforced by the courts in fixing the rights
and liabilities of the parties. "^^

§ 4140. Contractual Rate. — Common carriers having adopted classifica-
tion sheets fixing transportation charges, and having filed them with the inter-
state commerce commission, are, as well as the shippers, bound thereby, and
contracts between carriers and shippers are governed by the classification of the
sheet in force at the date of the shipment. ^^^ An agreement whereby a carrier

state Commerce Comm. v. Brimson, 154 64. Proceedings to attack schedule rate.

U. S. 447, 38 L. Ed. 1047, 14 S. Ct. 1125; —Great Northern R. Co. v. O'Connor, 232

Texas, etc., R. Co. v. Abilene Cotton Oil U. S. 508, 34 S. Ct. 380; Kansas, etc.,

Co., 204 U. S. 426, 51 L. Ed. 553, 27 S. R. Co. v. Carl. 227 U. S. 639. 33 S. Ct. 391;

Ct. 350, 9 Am. & Eng. Ann. Cas. 1075; Missouri, etc., R. Co. v. Harriman, 227 U.

vSouthern Pac. Co. v. Interstate Commerce &• 657, 33 S. Ct. 397.

Comm., 200 U. S. 536, 50 L. Ed. 585, 26 65. Contractual rate.— United States.—

S. Ct. 330. United States v. Standard Oil Co., 183

59. Southern Pac. Co. 7'. Interstate Com- Fed. 223; Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Segari
merce Comm., 200 U. S. 536, 50 L. Ed. & Co., 205 Fed. 998.

585 26 S Ct 330 Alabama. — Southern R. Co. v. Harrison,

60. Baltimore, etc., R. Co. v. La Due, 119 Ala. 539. 24 So. 552, 43 L. R. A. 385,
108 N. Y. S. 659, 57 Misc. Rep. 614. 72 Am. St. Rep. 936.

61. Where goods reshipped. — Bigbee, Georgia. — Raleigh, etc., R. Co. v. Swan-
etc, Packet Co. v. Mobile, etc., R. Co., 60 son, 28 S. E. 601, 102 Ga. 754, 39 L. R.
Fed. 545. A. 275.

62. Demurrage and storage charges. — loiva. — McManus r. Chicago, etc., R.
United States v. Texas, etc., R. Co., 185 Co., 156 Iowa 359, 136 N. W. 769.

Fed. 820. Kansas. — Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Hub-

63. Damages for charge in excess of bell. 54 Kan. 232, 38 Pac. 266.
schedule. — Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Fein- Kcnitickv. — Louisville, etc., R. Co. v.
tuch, 191 Fed. 482. Allen, 153 S. W. 198, 152 Ky. 145, petition



275Z



INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT.



§ 4140



accepts from the shipper less than the established and published rate violates the
Interstate Commerce Act and is wholly illegal.'^e 'phe rate is fixed by law and
not by contract.'''^ There is no provision excepting special contracts from the
operation of the law. One rate is to be charged, and that the one fixed and pub-
lished in the manner pointed out in the statute, and subject to change in the only
way open by the statute. There is no provision for the filing of contracts with
shippers, and no method of making them public defined in the statute. If the
rates are subject to secret alteration by special agreement, then the statute will
fail of its purpose to establish a rate duly published, known to all, and from
which neither shipper nor carrier may depart.*'^

Made before Act Took Effect. — Where a carrier is engaged in business au-
thorized by charter or legislation prior to Interstate Commerce Act, and so in-
terblended with the transportation as to defy separation, the authority of regu-
lating is limited to compelling just and reasonable rates. "^'-^



for rehearing overruled 154 S. W. 371,
152 Ky. 837.

Massachusetts. — New York, etc., R. Co.
-v. York, etc., Co., 103 N. E. 366, 215 Mass.
36.

New Mexico. — Pecos Valley, etc., R. Co.
V. Harris, 14 N. Mex. 410, 94 Pac. 951.

New York. — Pennsylvania R. Co. v.
Mogi, 128 N. Y. S. 643, 71 Misc. Rep. 412;
judgment, 108 N. Y. S. 659, 57 Misc. Rep.
614, reversed in Baltimore, etc., R. Co.
V. La Due, 112 N. Y. S. 964, 128 App.
Div. 594.

North Carolina. — \'irginia-Carolina Pea-
nut Co. V. Atlantic, etc., R. Co. (N. C),
82 S. E. 1.

North Dakota. — Smith v. Great North-
ern R. Co., 15 N. Dak. 195, 107 N. W. 56.

Tc.vas. — Southern Pac. Co. v. Redding,
17 Tex. Civ. App. 440, 43 S. W. 1061;
Houston, etc., R. Co. v. Dumas (Tex. Civ.
App.), 43 S. W. 609. See, also, Missouri,
etc., R. Co. V. Trinity County Lumber Co.,
1 Tex. Civ. App. 553, 21 S. W. 290; Texas,
etc., R. Co. V. Clark, 4 Tex. Civ. App. 611,
23 S. W. 698.

Washington. — Fisher v. Great Northern
R. Co., 49 Wash. 205, 95 Pac. 77.

The time during which a rate different
from the rate agreed upon between the
carrier and a shipper is established by the



Online LibraryThomas Johnson MichieA treatise on the law of carriers (Volume 4) → online text (page 122 of 214)