Copyright
Thomas Johnson Michie.

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

. (page 75 of 214)
Online LibraryThomas Johnson MichieA treatise on the law of carriers (Volume 4) → online text (page 75 of 214)
Font size
QR-code for this ebook


ered as laying down the principle that the
states might regulate the charges for in-
terstate traffic, they must be considered



§ 3871 cARRmRS. 3494

Where Congress Has Acted. — Congress has so taken control of railroad
rate making as to invalidate provisions of a state statute penalizing recusal of
carrier to receive freight for transportation to a point on line of anot^ier car-
rier outside the state, where it had no rate therefor/'-''^ The state can not, in
view of act of congress to regulate interstate commerce and its amendments,
prescribe rates of freight for interstate shipments, either directly or indirectly .^*^

Where Rates Filed with Interstate Commerce Commission. ^The fact
that a railroad company, in making up its schedule of through rates filed with the
interstate commerce commission, has taken the sum of its local rates in each state,
does not remove such local rates from the jurisdiction of the state for the pur-
pose of regulation, nor does the fact that a reduction of local rates by the state
may incidentally place the company under the business necessity of reducing its
interstate rates affect the legality of such reduction.'' '^ Where a carrier, in the
unrestrained course of business, adopted a lower schedule of charges for intra-
state and interstate passenger service than the rate allowed by the state corpora-
tion commission for intrastate business, it can not object to the rates fixed by the
commission as substantially burdening interstate commerce. ^^

Application of Common Law of State. — The common-law rule forbid-
ding common carriers from exacting unreasonable charges does not apply to in-
terstate commerce, though the contract of carriage is made in a state where that
I'ule prevails, since such commerce is governed solely by the laws of the United
States, and the United States have never adopted the common law.^^ The inter-
state commerce act providing that the act shall not abridge the remedies "now
existing" at common law or by statute, does not confer on the shipper the right to
recover overcharges on shipments made prior to the passage of the act, on the
ground that it recognizes a common-law or statutory liability on the part of the
carrier therefor.''"

Regulation in Amendment to Charter. — A state statute amending the char-
ter of a railroad company so as to prohibit it from allowing its tracks to connect
with the tracks of another railroad company, which passes through other states,
unless the latter shall arrange its freight charges on coal delivered to it from the
former, that the combined freight charges shall not exceed the lowest freight
charges on coal shipped to the same destination over the latter line from any point
in Pennsylvania or West Virginia, which is as far or further distant from the

as overruled. See, also, Bowman v. Chi- Commonwealth, 112 Va. 515, 71 S. E. 539.

cago, etc., R. Co., 125 U. S. 465, 31 L. Ed. 59. Application of common law of state.

700, 8 S. Ct. 689, 1063. In none of the — Swift v. Philadelphia, etc., R. Co., 58

subsequent cases has any disposition Fed. 858.

been shown to limit or qualify the doc- Since the common law, as such, is no

trine laid down in the Wabash case, and part of the national jurisprudence, and

to that doctrine we still adhere." since the exclusive right to regulate com-

55. Where congress has acted.— South- merce is vested in congress, overcharges
ern R. Co. v. Burlington Lumber Co., 225 for freight on an mter state shipment, m-
U. S. 99, 56 L. Ed. 1001, 32 S. Ct. 657, re- volvmg unjust discrmimation made prior
versing judgment 152 N. C. 70, 67 S. E. to the Interstate Commerce_ Act, can not
-|g^ " be recovered. Gatton v. Chicago, etc., K.

_. e. . \xT , . T? r^ iQa Co.. 95 Iowa 112, 63 N. W. 589, 28 L. R.

56. State v. Western, etc., R. Co., 138 ^ .g^.

Ga. 835, 76 S. E. 577. a ^ r But it has been held in an action for

r« u'"? ^}ll^''^^^^^^^^ ^T^''''^'^%. Lar damages for charging unreasonable rates

Feb. 4, 1887, as amended June 29, 1906, ^^^ transportation from one state to an-

coyers all rates with respect to interstate ^^^^ ^j^^^ shipments made before the

shipments the state egislation hxing in- ^^^ ^ion of the Interstate Commerce Act

terstate rates is thereby superseded^ Wa- ^^^ governed by the common law, and

N 'f ^24 "'■ ^^ ^' t'^°^^ "^^d^ ^^t^"" the adoption of that

JNI. Ji. 7«34. ^^^ l^y ^j^g common law as modified by

57. Where rates filed with interstate the act. Murray v. Chicago, etc., R. Co.,
commerce commission. — Louisville, etc., g2 Fed. 24.

R. Co. V. Siler, 186 Fed. 176. 60. Gatton v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 95

58. Washington Southern R. Co. v. Iowa 112, 63 N. W. 589, 28 L. R. A. 556.



3495 REGULATION AND CONTROL. § 3871

destination as the point where the coal is dehvered to the former, is invahd as an
attempt to regulate interstate commerce. '^^

Requiring Carrier to Give Notice of Charges. — A statute requiring a
carrier to inform the consignee of the freight charges and to deliver the freight
on tender or payment subject to a penalty for failure to do so, is not invalid as
interfering with interstate commerce, failure to deliver freight not being interstate
commerce."- '

Regulating Mediiim of Payment of Fares. — A state statute authorizing a
railway company incorporated under the laws of the state to issue transportation
m payment for printing and advertising must give way, so far as interstate trans-
portation is concerned, before the provisions of the act to regulate commerce un-
der which a carrier can accept nothing but money in exchange for interstate
transportation."-^

Refunding Overcharge. — A state law subjecting a carrier to a penalty for
failure to refund an overcharge within the time prescribed, does not impose an
unlawful burden on interstate commerce, in violation of the constitution of the
united States, conferring on congress the right to regulate interstate commerce. *'■•*

Charges for Loading and Unloading. — A so-called "lake cargo rate," made
by a railroad comi)any for the carriage of coal in carload lots from a mining dis-
trict in Ohio to Huron and Cleveland, ports in that state on Lake Erie, which in-
cludes the loading of vessels with such coal for transportation to ports in other
states on the Upper Lakes, is a rate for transportation in interstate commerce,
and not subject to regulation by the railroad commission of Ohio.''^

Where Goods Reshipped. — Under an order of the railroad commission fix-
ing the freight rate on rough lumber moving on railroads wholly within the state,
subject to the condition that the manufactured product should be reshipped over
the same line, and fixing a minimum proportion of the tonnage of outbound man-
ufactured product to the tonnage of inbound rough material, a shipment of rough
lumber within the state with the understanding that it should be manufactured
into the finished product, and then shipped out over the line of the same carrier
to undetermined points beyond the state, is not a continuous shipment to the final
destination out of the state, and the order affecting rates on the shipment within
the state is not a regulation of interstate commerce.""

Where Railroad Leased by State. — A state statute, authorizing a lease by

61. In amendment to charter. — Acts 63. Regulating medium of payment of

1906, p. 413, c. 2.57, amending the charter fares. — Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. United

of the Cumberland & Pennsylvania Rail- States, 219 U. S. 486, 55 L. Ed. 305, 31

road Company so as to prohibit it from S. Ct. 272, affirming judgment 163 Fed.

allowing its track to connect with the 114.

tracks of the Baltimore & Ohio Railroad 64. Refunding overcharge. — Raleigh

Company, which passes through other Iron Works v. Southern R. Co., 148 N.

states, unless the latter shall arrange its C. 469, 62 S. E. 595.

freight charges on coal delivered to it 6.5. Charges for loading and unloading.

from the former, that the combined freight — Railroad Comm. v. Worthington, 110 C.

charges of the two companies shall not ex- C. A. 85, 187 Fed. 965.

ceed the lowest freight charges on coal An unconstitutional attempt to regulate
shipped to the same destination over the interstate commerce is made by the Oliio
line of the Baltimore & Ohio Railroad railroad commission estal)lishing a freight
Company from any point in Pennsylvania rate on "lake-cargo coal" billed from
or West Virginia, which is as far or Ohio coal fields to Ohio ports on Lake
further distant from the destination as Erie, applicable only to such coal as is
the point in Alleghany county, where the placed on vessels at those ports for car-
coal is delivered to the Cumberland & riage to points outside the state. Rail-
Pennsylvania Railroad Company, is in- road Comm. v. Worthington, 225 U. S.
valid as an attempt to regulate interstate 101, 56 L. Ed. 1004, 32 S. Ct. 653, affirm-
commcrcc. State v. Cumljcrland, etc., R. ing decree 110 C. C. A. 85, 187 Fed. 9G5.
Co., 105 Md. 478, 66 Atl. 458. 66. Where goods reshipped.^Chapman,

62. Requiring carrier to give notice of etc., Land Co. v. Jonesl)oro, etc., R. Co.,
charges.— Hock field z'. Southern R. Co., 97 Ark. 300, 133 S. W. 1119.

150 N. C. 419, 64 S. E. 181.



}§ 3871-3872



CARRIERS.



3496



the state of a railroad, and providing that the lessee shall be subject to reasonable
schedules of freight prescribed by state laws and the railroad commission, and a
lease pursuant tliereto, so far as concerns interstate rates, are in conflict with the
Interstate Commerce Act/'*^

Consent of Carrier. — An agreement by a company leasing the Western & At-
lantic Railroad can not confer on the state railroad commission governmental
power to regulate interstate freight rates which it does not possess as an agency of
the state.'" ^

Regulation Presumed Reasonable. — An order of a state railroad commis-
sion reducing class and commodity freight rates will be presumed to be reasonable,
and not to interfere with interstate commerce, in the absence of a showing to the
contrary.*^ '^

Free Passage of Ov^^ner of Goods. — A statute requiring railroad companies
to carry the shipper of a car load or loads of goods to and from the point desig-
nated in the bill of lading without extra charge, but not attempting to fix the ship-
ping rate per car, is not an attempt to regulate interstate commerce.''''^

§ 3872. Prohibiting Discriminations, — Where a railroad company
bound itself by a contract with a city not discriminate in rates against the
city or its inhabitants, a resolution of the city council, declaring rates charged by
the company between the city and points in other states to be discriminative, and
requiring their reduction under penalty of a forfeiture of the contract, is not a
law attempting to regulate interstate commerce, but an attempt merely to en-
force a lawful contract. '^1



67. Where railroad leased by state. —

State V. Western, etc., R. Co., 138 Ga. 835,
76 S. E. 577.

So far as they deal with interstate
freight rates, Acts 1889, p. 362, and a
lease of a railroad pursuant thereto, can-
not be enforced by injunction, nor by de-
cree for specific performance to compel
the railroad to charge no greater rates
than are fixed by the State Railroad Com-
mission, or to file new schedules before
the Interstate Railroad Commission.
State V. Western, etc.. R. Co., 138 Ga.
835, 76 S. E. 577.

So far as they deal with interstate
freight rates, the terms of the lease act
and of the lease can not be enforced
either by injunction to prevent the use of
a rate or classification filed and estab-
lished in accordance with the act of con-
gress to regulate interstate commerce
(Act Feb. 4, 1887, c. 104, 24 Stat. 379 [U.
S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 3154]), as amended
(Act June 29, 1906, c. 3591, 34 Stat. 584
[U. S. Comp. St Supp. 1911, p. 1284]), or
by decree for specific performance to
compel the railroad company to charge
"no greater rate per ton per mile
on through freight on that road than the
local rate allowed and fixed on similar
freights by the (State) Railroad Commis-
sion for said railroad," or to file new
schedules and take proceedings before the
Interstate Commerce Commission in re-
spect to interstate rates, so as to make
them conform to classifications and rates
fixed by the State Railroad Commission.
State r. Western, etc., R. Co., 138 Ga.
835. 76 S. E. 577.

The state, as the owner of the Western



& Atlantic Railroad, leased it for a term
of years to a company. There was a pro-
vision in the act authorizing the lease,
which was also incorporated by reference
in the lease itself, to the effect that the
company taking the lease should "be sub-
ject to and required to obey all just and
reasonable rules, orders, schedules of
freight and tariffs as may be prescribed
by the laws of this state and the railroad
commission of this state, and said lease
company shall charge no greater rate per
ton per mile on through freight on said
railroad than the local rate allowed and
fixed on similar freights by the railroad
commission for said railroad." Held that,
so far as concerns the making of inter-
state rates, this act and agreement are in
conflict with the Interstate Commerce
Act (Act Feb. 4, 1887. c. 104, 24 Stat. 379
[U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 3154]), as
amended (Act June 29, 1906. c. 3591, 34
Stat. 584 [U. S. Comp. St. Supp. 1911, p.
1284]), which was enacted by congress in
pursuance of its constitutional power, and
to that extent are inoperative. State v.
Western, etc., R. Co.. 138 Ga. 835. 76 S.
E. 577.

68. Consent of carrier. — State v. West-
ern, etc., R. Co.. 138 Ga. 835, 76 S. E. 577.

69. Presumed reasonable. — Southern
Pac. Co. 7'. Railroad Comm., 193 Fed. 699.

70. Free passage of owner of goods.
— Laws 1897, c. 167: Atchison, etc., R.
Co. V. Campbell, 56 Pac. 509, 8 Kan.
App. 661, reversed in 59 Pac. 1051, 61
Kan. 349, 48 L. R. A. 251.

71. Discrimination. — Iron Mountain R.
Co. v. Memphis, 96 Fed. 113, 37 C. C. A.
410.



3497



REGUI.ATION AND CONTROL.



§ 3873



§ 3873. Prohibiting Greater Charge for Shorter than Longer Haul.
— Intrastate Transportation. — A state statute, providing that, if any railroad
company shall, within the state, charge or receive for transportating passengers
or freight of the same class, the same or a greater sum for any distance than it
does for a longer distance, it shall be liable to a penalty for unjust discrimina-
tion, is unconstitutional and void as a regulation of interstate commerce, so far
as it includes a transportation of goods under one contract for continuous serv-
ice covering the entire route, from points in the state, to points in other states,
such transportation being "commerce among the state," even as to that part of
the voyage which lies within the state enacting the statute.'^^

Internal Transportation. — A state statute, regulating the charges of rail-
road companies for the transportation of persons and property, applicable ex-
clusively to contracts for a carriage which begins and ends within the state, dis-
connected from a continuous transportation through or into other states, is a
valid regulation, "^2 for the reason that both the charge and the actual transpor-
tation in such cases are exclusively confined to the limits of the territory of the
state, and is not commerce among the states, or interstate commerce, but is
exclusively commerce within the state."-* Accordingly, a state statute prohibit-



72. Prohibiting greater charge for short
than long haul. — A railroad company
having made a discrimination in regard
to goods transported over the same road
or roads, from Peoria, in Illinois, and
from Oilman in Illinois, to New York,
charging more for the same class of
goods carried from Oilman than from
Peoria, the former eighty-six miles nearer
to New York than the latter, this differ-
ence being in the length of the line within
the state of Illionis, it was held that the
statute of Illinois, April 7, 1871, Rev.
Stat., Chapter 114, § 126, having been
construed by the supreme court of the
state to include a transportation of goods
under one contract and by one voyage
from the interior of the state of Illinois
into and through other states, as applied
to the transaction under consideration,
was forbidden by the constitution of the
United States, even as to that portion of
the transportation within the state of
Illinois. Wabash, etc., R. Co. v. Illinois,
118 U. S. 5.57, 30 L. Ed. 244, 7 S. Ct. 4.
See, also, Covington, etc., Bridge Co. v.
Kentucky, 154 U. S. 204, 38 L. Ed. 962,
14 S. Ct. 1087; Fargo v. Michigan, 121 U.
S. 230, 30 L. Ed. 888, 7 S. Ct. 857; Lake
Shore, etc., R. Co. v. Ohio, 173 U. S.
285, 43 L. Ed. 702, 19 S. Ct. 465; Cleve-
land, etc., R. Co. V. Illinois, 177 U. S.
514, 44 L. Ed. 868, 20 S. Ct. 722.

Section 218 of the Kentucky constitu-
tion prohibiting common carriers from
charging more for a shorter than for a
longer haul, having been construed by
the highest court of the state as not con-
fined to a case where the long and short
hauls are both within the state, but as
extending to and embracing a long haul
from a place outside of to one witliin the
state, and a shorter haul between points
on the same line and in the same direc-
tion, both of which are within the state,
its enforcement regulates, and immedi-



ately and directly influences and affects
interstate commerce, as it requires the
carrier to announce and enforce its in-
terstate rates with reference to the rates
within the state, and it is therefore un-
constitutional. Louisville, etc., R. Co. v.
Eubank, 184 U. S. 27, 46 L. Ed. 416, 22
S. Ct. 277.

73. Internal transportation. — Wabash,
etc., R. Co. V. Illinois, 118 U. S. 557, 30
L. Ed. 244, 7 S. Ct. 4; Louisville, etc.,
R. Co. V. Mississippi, 133 U. S. 587. 33
L. Ed. 784, 10 S. Ct. 348; Fargo v. Mich-
igan, 121 U. S. 230, 30 L. Ed. 888, 7 S.
Ct. 857; Lake Shore, etc., R. Co. v. Ohio,
173 U. S. 285, 43 L. Ed. 702, 19 S. Ct.
465; Reagan v. Mercantile Trust Co., 154
U. S. 413, 38 L. Ed. 1028, 14 S. Ct. 1060;
Smyth V. Ames, 169 U. S. 466, 42 L. Ed.
819, 18 S. Ct. 418; Louisville, etc., R. Co.
V. Kentucky, 183 U. S. 503, 46 L. Ed.
298, 22 S. Ct. 95; Railroad Comrri. Cases,
116 U. S. 307, 29 L. Ed. 636, 6 S. Ct. 334,
1191.

It is now settled in the federal su-
preme court that a state has power to
regulate and limit the amount of charges
by railroad companies for the transpor-
tation of persons and property within its
own jurisdiction, unless restrained by
some contract in the charter, or unless
what is done amounts to a regulation of
foreign or interstate commerce. Railroad
Comm. Cases, 116 U. S. 307, 29 L. Ed.
630, 6 S. Ct. 334, 1191. citing Railroad
Co. V. Maryland (U. S.), 21 Wall. 456,
22 L. Ed. 678; Chicago, etc., R. Co. v.
Iowa, 94 U. S. 155, 24 L. Ed. 94; Peik
V. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 94 U. S. 164, 24
L. Ed. 97; Winona, etc., R. Co. v. Blake,
94 U. S. 180, 24 L. Ed. 99; Ruggles v.
Illinois, 108 U. S. 526, 27 L. Ed. 812, 2
S. Ct. 832. See, also. Smyth v. Ames,
169 U. S. 466. 42 L. Va\. 819. IS S. Ct.
418.

74. Reason for rule. -Wabash, etc., R.



§§ 3873-3874



CARRIERS.



3498.



ing carriers from charging more for a short than for a long haul, so far as it
affects contracts for a carriage which begins and ends within the state, is valid,
and is not subject to the constitutional prohibition concerning commerce among
the states.'^ Any interference with interstate commerce by the enforcement of
state laws prohibiting a greater charge for shorter than for longer hauls is too
remote and indirect to be regarded as an unconstitutional interference with in-
terstate commerce."" An unconstitutional regulation of interstate commerce is
made by Const. Ky. § 218, prohibiting common carriers from charging more for
a shorter than for a longer haul, so far as its provisions extend to a long haul
from a place outside of to one within the state, and a shorter haul between points
on the same line and in the same direction, both of which are within the state,
as the carrier is thus compelled to adjust, regulate, or fix his interstate rates with
some reference to his rates with some reference to his rates within the state."'^
A state railroad commission is without power to require a railroad company to
cancel and abolish "proportional tariffs which apply only to interstate or foreign
shipments, and which were adopted with approval of the interstate commerce-
commission, to prohibit the company from permitting export shipments of grain
to be stopped in transit within the state for cleaning, grading, etc., or by similar
orders to attempt to regulate interstate or foreign commerce.'^ ■'*

§ 3874. Posting Schedule of Rates. — A state statute requiring each rail-
:oad company annually to fix its rates for the transportation of passengers and
freight, and to put up a printed copy of such rates at all its stations and depots,
and cause it to remain posted during the year, and providing that a failure to
fulfill such requirements, or the charging of a higher rate than thus posted,,
should subject the offending company to certain penalties, is not void as a reg-
ulation of interstate commerce so far as it affects rates for the transportation
of interstate passengers and freight, but is valid as a police regulation, '^■^ not-



Co. r. Illinois, 118 U. S. 557, 30 L. Ed.
244, 7 S. Ct. 4; Louisville, etc., R. Co. v.
Mississippi, 133 U. S. 587, 33 L. Ed. 784,
10 S. Ct. 348.

75. Wabash, etc., R. Co. v. Illinois, 118
U. S. 557, 30 L. Ed. 244, 7 S. Ct. 4.

Section 820, Kentucky Statutes, based
upon § 218 of the constitution of that
state adopted in 1891, does not operate
as an interference with interstate com-
merce. The provision does not in terms
embrace the case of interstate traffic, but
is restricted in its regulation to those who
own or operate a railroad within the
state, and the longer and shorter dis-
tances mentioned are distances upon the
railroad line within the state. The par-
ticular case before the court was one
involving only the transportation of prop-
erty from one point in the state of Ken-
tucky to another by a corporation of
that state. Louisville, etc., R. Co. v.
Kentucky, 183 U. S. 503, 46 L. Ed. 298,
22 S. Ct. 95, citing New York, etc.. R.
Co. V. Commonwealth, 158 U. S. 431, 39
L. Ed. 1043, 15 S. Ct. 896; Henderson
Bridge Co. v. Kentucky. 166 U. S. 150,
41 L. Ed. 953, 17 S. Ct. 532. to the prop-
osition that the interference with the
commercial power of the general govern-
ment to be unlawful must be direct, and
not the merely incidental effect of en-
forcing the police powers of a state. See,
also, Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Eubank,
184 U. S. 27, 46 L. Ed. 416, 22 S. Ct. 277.



76. Judgment, 51 S. W. 164, 1012, 106
Ky. 633, 21 Ky. L. Rep. 232, 90 Am. St.
Rep. 236, affirmed in Louisville, etc., R.
Co. V. Commonwealth, 22 S. Ct. 95, 183
U. S. 503, 46 L. Ed. 298.

77. Louisville, etc., R. Co. v. Eubank,.
22 S. Ct. 277, 184 U. S. 27, 46 L. Ed. 416.

78. Rosenbaum Grain Co. v. Chicago,,
etc., R. Co., 130 Fed. 46, order affirmed
Railroad Comni. v. Rosenbaum Grain
Co., 64 C. C. A. 444, 130 Fed. 110.

79. Posting schedule of rates. — The
statute of Iowa passed in 1862 held to
be a valid police regulation and not un-
constitutional so far as it affects inter-
state commerce. Railroad Co. v. Fuller
(U. S.), 17 Wall. 560, 21 L. Ed. 710, dis-
tinguished in Gulf, etc., R. Co. v. Hefleyr
158 U. S. 98, 39 L. Ed. 910, 15 S. Ct.
802, in the fact that the statute there con-
sidered was in conflict with an act of
congress operating upon the same sub-
ject matter. See, also, Hennington v.
Georgia, 163 U. S. 299, 41 L. Ed. 166,
16 S. Ct. 1086; Cleveland, etc., R. Co. v.
Illinois, 177 U. S. 514, 44 L. Ed. 868, 20
S. Ct. 722; Railroad Comm. Cases, 11&
U. S. 307, 29 L. Ed. 636, 6 S. Ct. 334, 119L

While the court in Railroad Co. v. Ful-
ler (U. S.), 17 Wall. 560. 21 L. Ed. 710,
was unanimously of the opinion that the
statute was merely a police regulation,
it said that even if the statute was a reg-
ulation of commerce, the question would
- arise whether it was not local in its char-



3499 REGULATION AND CONTROL. §§ 3874-3876

withstanding an act of congress authorizing every raih-oad company in the
United States to carry upon and over its road all passengers, freight and prop-
erty on their way from any state to another state, and to receive compensation
therefor. ■'^"

Joint Through Rates. — Where defendant railway company, which had, in



Online LibraryThomas Johnson MichieA treatise on the law of carriers (Volume 4) → online text (page 75 of 214)