KF (^armii Slaui #riynnl Slibratg Cornell University Library KF2172.5.U58 Citations and digest of Decisions of the 3 1924 019 362 882 Cornell University Library The original of tiiis book is in tine Cornell University Library. There are no known copyright restrictions in the United States on the use of the text. http://www.archive.org/details/cu31924019362882 CITATIONS AND DIGEST OF DECISIONS OF THE Interstate Commerce Commission OF THE UNITED STATES VOLUMES 1 to 29 1888 to 1914 ALVGRD L.JBISHOP of the Cleveland Bar The Gates Legal Publishing Company cleveland - ohio publishers 1915 f^s-^l^ Copyright, 1915 by Alvord L. Bishop EXPLANATION. The purpose of this publication is to present in convenient form a compilation covering the complete history. of all cases reported by the Interstate Commerce Commission to which citation has been made in either the opinions of the Commission or the various Federal Courts. Part I consists of cases arranged according to the volume and page as they appear in the Interstate Commerce Commis- sion Reports, with a reference to their location in the Interstate Commerce Reports. Each case has been digested and the prin- cipal points involved therein are shown, together with its full history and the citations thereof in the I. 0.' C. Reports, I. C. Reports and reports of the Federal courts. The dual citation of Interstate Commerce Commission cases is due to the fact that there aBe,two sets of reports covering the earlier decisions of the Commission. The Interstate Commerce Reports, published by The Law- yers Co-Operative Publishing Company, Rochester, N. Y., Vol- umes 1 to 6 (1888 to 1896), contain the cases included in Vol- umes 1 to 5 (1888 to 1893) of the reports designated as Inter- state Commerce Commission Reports. Volume 6 of The Inter- state Commerce Commission Reports includes the balance of the cases in Volume 6 of the Interstate Commerce Reports not cov- ered by Volume 5 of the former set. Thereafter the cases are reported in the same volume and on the same page in both sets of reports. The Interstate Commerce Commission Reports are desig- nated herein by the abbreviation "I. C. C." and the Inter- state Commerce Reports as "I. C". Part II consists of citations of Federal cases in the reports of the Commission. Federal cases involving orders or decisions of the Commission are treated specially. Reference is made by the abbreviation "cc" to the I. C. C. Reports wherein such case is reported, and in addition all the direct citations of such Fed- eral ease are shown. The compilation will be kept up to date in all its various features through current continuation to be published semi- annually. TABLE OF I. C. C. CASES CITED. Note. — Black-faced figures indicate the volume of the Interstate Com- merce Commission Reports, and the lighter figures which follow, the page where the case may be found. Aberdeen Group Commercial Asso. v. M. & O. R. R. Co 10 — 289 Acme Cement Plaster Co. v. C. & A. R. R. Co 17—220 Acme Cement Plaster Co. v. St. L. & S. F. R. R. Co 22—283 Alabama Coal Operators Asso. v. S. Ry. Co 21 — 230 Alan Wood Iron & Steel Co. v. P. R. R. Co 22—540 Albree v. B. & M. R. R 22—303 Alleged Unlawful Rates on Grain by A.. T. & S. Fe Ry. Co 7— 33 Alleged Unlawful Rates on Grain by A., T. & S. Fe Ry. Co 7—240 Alleged Violations of Fourth Section by A., T. & S. Fe Ry. Co 7^ 61 Allen & Co. V. C, M. & St. P. Ry. Co : 16—293 Allen V. L., N., A. & C. R. R. Co 1—199 Alpha Portland Cement Co. v. B. & O. R. R. Co 22—446 Alton Board of Trade v. C. & A. R. R. Co 28-589 Amarillo Gas Co. v. A., T. & S. Fe Ry. Co 13—240 American Agricultural Chemical Co. v. B. & A. R. R. Co 28—398 American Bankers Asso. v. American Express Co ;..-. 15 — IS American Coal Co. v. B. & O. R. R. Co 17—149 American Creosoting Works v. I. C. R. R. Co 15 — 160 American Creosote Works v. I. C. R. R. Co i 18 — 212 American Fruit Union v. C, N. O. & T. Ry. Co 12—411 American Lumber & Manf g. Co. v. S. P. Co 14 — 561 American National Live Stock Asso. v. T. & P. Ry. Co 12 — 32. American Refractories Co. v. E., J. & E. R. R. Co., 15—480 American Warehousemen's Asso. v. I. C. R. R 7 — 556 American Wire Nail Co. v. Q. & C. Fast Freight Line 3—224 Anaconda Copper Mining Co. v. C. & E. R. R. Co ., 19—592 Anaconda Copper Mining Co. v. C. & E. R. R. Co 21—40 Anacostia Citizens Asso. v. B. & O. R. R. Co 25—411 Anadarko Cotton Oil Co. v. A., T. & S. Fe Ry. Co ;.... 20—43 Anderson, Clayton & Co. v. St. L. & S. F. R. R. Co 17— 12 Andrews Soap Co. v. P., C, C. & St. L. Ry. Co 4—41 Andys Ridge Coal Co. v. S. Ry. Co 18—405 Anthony Salt Co. v. M. P. Ry. Co 5—299 Appalachia Lumber Co. v. L. & N. R. R. Co 25—193 Arizona Corporation Commission v. A., T. & S. Fe Ry. Co 28 — 428 Arkansas Fuel Co. v. C, M. & St. P. Ry. Co 16— 95 Arlington Heights Fruit Exchange v. S. P. Co 19—148 Arlington Heights Fruit Exchange v. S. P. Co 20—106 Arlington Heights Fruit Exchange v. S. P. Co 22 — 149 Artz v. S. A. L. Ry. Co 11—458 Ashgrove Lime & Portland Cement Co. v. A., T. & S. Fe Ry. Co... 23—519 Ashland Fire Brick Co. v. S. Ry. Co 22—115 Asparagus Growers Asso. v. A. C. L. R. R. Co 17 — 423 Associated Wholesale Grocers of St. Louis v. M. P. Ry. Co 1—156 Associated Jobbers of Los Angeles v. A., T. & S. Fe Ry. Co 18—310 Association of Bituminous Coal Operators of Central Pa. v. P. R. R. Co 23—385 Association of Union Made Garment Manfgrs. of America v. C. & N. W. Ry. Co 16—405 Atchison v. M. P. Ry. Co 12—111 Atchison V. St. L., L M. & S. Ry. Co 22—131 Augusta & Savannah S. S. Co. v. Ocean S. S. Co. of Savannah 26 — 380 Auto Vehicle Co. v. C, M. & St. P. Ry. Co 21—286 Avery Manfg. Co. v. A., T. & S. Fe Ry. Co. . . . , 16— 20 TABLE OF CASES CITED. Baer Bros. Mercantile Co. v. M. P. Ry. Co 13—329 Baer Bros. Mercantile Co. v. M. P. Ry. Co 17 — ^225 Baer Bros. Mercantile Co. v. M. P. Ry. Co 19— 13 Bainbridge Board of Trade v. L. H. & St. L. Ry. Co 15—586 Baker Manfg. Co. v. C. & N. W. Ry. Co 21—605 Balfour Guthrie & Co. v. O. W. R. R. & N. Co 21—539 Baltimore Chamber of Commerce v. B. & O. R. R. Co 22—596 Banner Milling Co. v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. R. Co 13— 31 Banner Milling Co. v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. Co 14—398 Banner Milling Co. v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. Co 19—128 Bannon v. Southern Express Co 13 — 516 Bascom Co. v. A., T. & S. Fe Ry. Co 17—354 Bates V. P. R. R. Co 3 — 435 Bates V. P. R. R. Co 4—281 Beall V. W., A. & M. V. Ry. Co 20-^06 Beatrice Creamery Co. v. I. C. R. R. Co 15-109 Beaumont & Great Northern R. R. v. A., T; & S. Fe Ry. Co 24—161 Beaver & Co. v. P., C, C. & St. L. Ry. Co 4—733 Beekman Lumber Co. v. C, R. I. & P. Ry. Co 16—528 Beekman Lumber Co. v. St. L. & S. F. R. R. Co 21—270 Beekman Lumber Co. v. St. L., L M. & S. Ry. Co 15—274 Beggs V. W. R. R. Co 16—208 Behlmer v. M. & C. R. R. Co 6—257 Bennett v. M., St. P. & S. Ste. M. Ry. Co 15—301 Bentley & Omsted Co. v. L. S. & M. S. Ry. Co 17— 56 Benton Transit Co. v. B., H., St. J. R. & L. Co 13—542 Birmingham Packing Co. v. T. & P. Ry. Co ; 12— 29 Bishop V. ■ Duval 3—128 Bitzer V. W. V. Ry. Co 24—253 Black Horse Tobacco Co. v. L C. R. R. Co 17—588 Blackman v. S. Ry. Co ■ 10—352 Black Mountain Coal Land Co. v. S. Ry. Co 15 — 286 Blackwell Milling & Elevator Co. v. M., K. & T. Ry. Co 12— 23 Blinn Lumber Co. v. S. P. Co 18 — 430 Bluefield Shippers Asso. v. N. & W. Ry. Co 22—519 Blume & Co. v. Wells Fargo & Co 15— 53 Board of Mayor, etc., of Bristol, Tenn.. v. V. & S. W. Ry. Co 15—453 Board of Improvement, etc., v. A., T. & S. Fe Ry. Co 26—539 Board of Railroad Commissioners of Iowa v. I. C. R. R. Co 20 — 181 Board of Railroad Commissioners of Kansas v. A., T. & S. Fe Ry- Co 7—69 Board of Railroad Commissioners of Kansas v. A., T. & S. Fe Ry- Co 8—304 Board of Railroad Commissioners of Kansas v. A., T. & S. Fe Ry- Co 22—407 Board of Railroad & Warehouse Commrs. of Missouri, v. E. S. Ry- Co 7—69 Board of Trade of Carrollton, Ga., v. C. of G. Ry. Co 28 154 Board of Trade of Chattanooga v. E; T. V. & G. R. R. Co 5 546 Board of Trade of Chicago v. C. & A. R. R. Co 4 158 Board of Trade of Chicago v. C. & A. R. R. Co 27 530 Board of Trade of Dawson, Ga., v.' C. of Ga. Ry. Co .' 8 142 Board of Trade of Hampton, Fa., v. N. C. & St. L. Ry. Co. ....... 8 503 Board of Trade of Lynchburg v. O. D. S. S. Co 6 632 Board of Trade of Morristown, Tenn., v. A., C, L. R. R Co 24 37'' Board of Trade of Troy v. A. M. R. R. Co '..'.'.'.'. 6— 1 Board of Trade Union of Farmington v. C, M. & St. P. Ry. Co 1 215 Board of Trade of Winston-Salem v. N. & W. Ry. Co ' 16 12 Boileau v. P. & L. E. R. R. Co '.'.'.'.'.'.'. 22—640 Boise Commercial Club v. Adams Express Co " 17 115 Boldt Company v. C, R. L & P. Ry. Co , '.'.'.'.'.'. 27— 11 Boston v. Atlantic Coast Line '" 24 50 Boston & Albany R. R. Co. v. B. & L. R. R. Co '.'.!.'!'.!.'!!! 1—158 Boston Chamber of Commerce v. B. & A. R. R. Co '.'..'..'. 1 436 Boston Chamber of Commerce v. L. S. & M. S. Ry. Co..!'..'.'."... 1 436 TABLE OF CASES CITED. Boston Fruit & Produce Exchange v. N. Y. & N. E. R. R. Co 4—664 Boston Fruit & Produce Exchange v. N. Y. & N. E. R. R. Co 5— 1 Bowling Green Business Protective Asso. v. L. & N. R. R. Co.... 24 — 228 Bovaird Supply Co. v. A., T. & S. Fe Ry. Co 13— 56 Boyle V. G. F. & O. D. R. R. Co 20—232 Brabham v. Atlantic Coast Line R. R. Co 11 — 464 Brady v. Pennsylvania R. R. Co 2 — 131 Breese-Trenton Mining Co. v. W. R. R. Co 19—598 Brewer & Hanleiter v. L. & N. R. R. Co 7—224 Brown Bros. Manfg. Co. v. C, B. & Q. R. R. Co 21—533 Brownell v. C. & C. M. R. R. Co 5^638 Brunswick-Balke Collender Co. v. A., T. & S. Fe Ry. Co 23—393 Brunswick-Balke Collender Co. v. C, M. & St. P. Ry. Co 18—165 Buckeye Buggy Co. v. C, C, C. & St. L. Ry. Co 9—620 Buffalo, Rochester & Pittsburgh R. R. Co. v. Penna. Co 29—114 Buffalo Union Furnace Co. v. L. S. & M. S.- Ry. Co 21—620 Buhlah Coal Co. v. P. R. R. Co 20— 52 Bulte Milling Co. v. C. & A. R. R. Co 15—351 Burgess v. Transcontinental Freight Bureau 13 — 668 Burgess v. Transcontinental Freight Bureau ,.'. 19 — 611 Burnham Hanna Munger Dry Goods Co. v. C, R. I. & P. Ry. Co . . . 14 — 299 Burton Stock Car Co. v. C, B. & Q. R. R. Co 1—13? Business Men's Asso. of Minn. v. C, St. P. M. & O. Ry. Co 2— 52 Business Men's Asso. of Minn. v. C. & N. W. Ry. Co 2—73 Business Men's League of Albert Lea v. B. & O. R. R. Co 24 — l2S Business Men's League of St. Louis v. A., T. & S. Fe Ry. Co 9—318 California Commercial Asso. v. Wells Fargo & Co 14 — 422 California Fruit Grower's Exchange v. S. P. Co 12 — 553 California Pole & Piling Co. v. S. P. Co 22—507 Callaway v. L. & N. R. R. Co 7—431 Canadian Valley Grain Co. v. C, R. I. & P. Ry. Co 19—108 Capehart v. L. & N. R. R. Co 4—265 Cannon Falls Farmers Elevator Co. v. C, G. W. Ry. Co 10 — 650 Capital City Gas Co. v. C. V. R. R. Co 11—104 Capital Electric Co. v. B. & O. T. R. R. Co 26—472 Cardiff Coal Co. v. C, M. & St. P. Ry. Co 13—460 Carolina Portland Cement Co. v. C. & O. R. R. Co 21—533 Carr v. Nor. Pac. Ry. Co 9— 1 Carrollton Board of Trade v. C. of G. Ry. Co 28—154 Carstens Packing Co. v. B., A. & P. Ry. Co ; . . 15—432 Carstens Packing Co. v. Nor. Pac. Ry. Co 14 — 577 Carstens Packing Co. v. O. R. R. & N. Co 17—125 Carstens Packing Co. v. O. S. L. R. R. Co 17—324 Carter White Lead Co. v. N. & W. Ry. Co 21— 41 Cary v. Eureka Springs R. R. Co 7 — 28b Casassa v. P. R. R. Co 24—629 Castle V. B. & O. R. R. Co 8—333 Cator V. S. P. Co 6—113 Cattle Raisers' Asso. of Tex. v. C, B. & Q. R. R. Co 10— 83 Cattle Raisers' Asso. of Tex. v. C, B. & Q. R. R. Co 1 1—277 Cattle Raisers' Asso. of Texas v. C, B. & Q. R. R. Co 12—507 Cattle Raisers' Asso. of Tex. v. Ft. W. & D. C. Ry. Co 7-513 Cattle Raisers' Asso. of Tex. v. Ft. W. & D. C. Ry. Co 7-555 Cattle Raisers' Asso. of Tex. v. M., K. & T. Ry. Co 11—296 Cattle Raisers' Asso. of Tex. v. M., K. & T. Ry. Co 13—418 Cedar Hill Coal & Coke Co. v. A., T. & S. Fe Ry. Co IS— 73 Cedar Hill Coal & Coke Co. v. C. & S. Ry. Co ■ 15—546 Cedar Hill Coal & Coke Co. v. C. & S. Ry. Co 16—387 Cedar Hill Coal & Coke Co. v. C. & S. Ry. Co 17—479 Cedar Rapids Commercial Club v. C, R. I. & P; Ry. Co 28 — 76 Cedar Rapids & Iowa Ry. & Light Co. v. C. & N. W. Ry. Co 13-250 Celina Mill & Elevator Co. v. St. L. S. W. Ry. Co 15—138 Central Commercial Company v. A., T. & S. Fe Ry. Co 26 — 373 TABLE OF CASES CITED. Central Commercial Company v. L. & N. R. R. Co 27 — 114 Central Yellow Pine Asso. v. I. C. R. R. Co 10—505 Central Yellow Pine Asso. v. V. S. & P. R. R. Co 10—193 Chamber of Commerce of Ashburn, Ga., v. G. S. & F. Ry. Co 23 — 140 Chamber of Commerce of Chattanooga v. S. Ry. Co 10 — 111 Chamber of Commerce of Milwaukee v. C, M. & St. P. Ry. Co 7—481 Chamber of Commerce of Milwaukee v. C, R. I. & P. Ry. Co 15 — 460 Chamber of Commerce of Milwaukee v. F. & P. M. R. Co 2 — 553 Chamber of Commerce of Milwaukee v. I. C. R. R. Co 14 — 640 Chamber of Commerce of Minneapolis v. G. N. Ry. Co 5 — 571 Chamber of Commerce of Newport News v. S. Ry. Co 23 — 345 Chamber of Commerce of New York v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. R. Co. . 24— 55 Chamber of Commerce of New York v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. R. Co. . 24—674 Chamber of Commerce of New York v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. R. Co. . 27—238 Chattanooga Board of Trade v. E. T. V. & G. R. R. Co 5—546 Chappelle v. L. & N. R. R. Co 19— 56 Charlotte Shippers Asso. v. S. Ry. Co 11 — 108 Chicago & Alton R. R. Co. v. P. R. R; Co 1—86 Chicago & Milwaukee Electric Ry. Co. v. I. C. R. R. Co 13— 20 Chicago Board of Trade v. C. & A. R. R. Co A — l5S Chicago Board of Trade v. C. & A. R. R. Co 27—530 Chicago Freight Bureau v. L., N., A. & C. Ry. Co 6—195 Chicago Livestock Exchange v. C. G. W. Ry. Co 10 — 428 Chicago Lumber & Coal Co. v. T. S. E. Ry. Co 16 — 323 Chicago Sash & Door Asso. v. N. & W. Ry. Co 14—594 Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Ry. Co. v. C. & A. R. R. Co 3—450 Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Ry. Co. v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. R. Co. 1— 86 Chicago, Wilmington & Vermillion Coal Co. v. C, B. & Q. R. R, Co. 23— 13 Chickasaw Compress Co. v. G., C. & S. F. Ry. Co 13 — 187 China & Japan Trading Co. v. G. R. R. Co 12 — 236 Chippewa Valley & Northern Ry. Co. v. M., St. P. & S. S. M. Ry. Co. 24—634 Cincinnati & Columbus Traction Co. v. B. & O. S. W. R. R. Co 20—486 Cincinnati Chamber of Commerce v. B. & O. R. R. Co 10 — 378 Cincinnati Freight Bureau v. C. N. O. & T. P. Ry. Co 6 — 195 Cincinnati Freight Bureau v. C. N. O. & T. P. R, R. Co 7—180 City of Ashland v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. R. Co ' 20— 3 City Council of Atchison v. M.' P. Ry. Co 12—111 City Council of Atchison v. M. P. Ry. Co • 12—254 City of Danville v. S. Ry. Co 8 — 409 City of Montezuma, Ga., v. C. of G. Ry. Co 28 — 280 City of Spokane v. N. P. Ry. Co 15—376 City of Spokane v. N. P. Ry. Co 16—179 City of Spokane v. N. P. Ry. Co 19 — 162 City of Spokane v. N. P. Ry. Co 21—400 Clark Co., F. G., v. L. S. & M. S. Ry. Co 11—558 Clearfield Lumber Co. v. C. & O. Ry. Co 21—211 Clinton Mnfgrs. & Shippers Asso. v. C. & A. R. R. Co 27 — 230 Cobb v. N. P. Ry. Co 20—100 Cofifeyville Vitrified Brick & Tile Co. v. St. L. & S. F. R. R. Co... 12—498 Coke Producers Asso. v. B. & O. R. R. Co 27 — 123 Colonial Salt Co. v. M.-I. & I. L 23—358 Colorado Coal Traffic Asso. v. A., T. & S. Fe Ry. Co 22 — 264 Colorado Coal Traffic Asso. v. C. & S. Ry. Co 19 — 478 Colorado Coal Traffic Asso. v. C. & S. Ry. Co 18 — 572 Colorado Coal Traffic Asso. v. D. & R. G. R. R. Co 23 — 458 Colorado Free Pass Investigation 26 491 Colorado Fuel & Iron Co. v. S. P. Co 6 488 Colorado Manfgrs.' Asso. v. A., T. & S. Fe Ry. Co 28 — 82 Columbia Grocery Co. v. L. & N. R. R. Co 18 502 Commercial & Industrial Asso. v. C. of G. Ry. Co 12 37,S Comercial Club of Duluth v. N. P. Ry. Co '. 13 288 Commercial Club of Hattiesburg v. A. G. S. R. R. Co 16 534 Commercial Club of Omaha v. A. & S. R. Ry. Co 18 532 Commercial Club of Omaha v. A. & S. R. Ry. Co 19 419 Commercial Club of Omaha v. A. & S. R. Ry. Co .... 27 302 Commercial Club of Omaha v. C. & N. W. Ry. Co 7 386 TABLE OF CASES CITED. Commercial Club of Omaha v. C. & N. W. Ry. Co 19— 1S6 Commercial Club of Omaha v. C, R. T. & P. Ry. Co 6 — 647 Commercial Club of Omaha v. S. P. Co 18 — S3 Commercial Club of Omaha v. S. P. Co 20—631 Commercial Club of Salt Lake City v. A., T. & S. Fe Ry. Co 19—218 Commercial Club of Santa Barbara v. S. P. Co 12 — 49.S Commercial Coal Co. v. B. & O. R. R. Co 15— 11 Commutation Rate Case, The 21 — 428 Consolidated Forwarding Co. v. S. P. Co 9 — 182 Consolidated Forwarding Co. v. S. P. Co 10 — 590 Consolidated Fuel Co, v. A., T. & S. Fe Ry. Co 24—213 Coomes & McGraw v. C. M. & St. P. Ry. Co 13—192 Coors V. S. P. Co 18—352 Copper Queen Consolidated Mining Co, v. B. & O. R. R. Co 18-154 Cordele Machine Shop v. L. & N. R. R. Co 6—361 Corn Belt Meat Producers Asso. v. C, B, & Q. R. R. Co 14—376 Corn Belt Meat Producers Asso. v. C, B. & Q. R. R. Co 17-533 Corporation Commission of North Carolina v, N. & W. Ry. Co 19 — 303 Corporation Commission of Oklahoma v. A., O. & W. R. R. Co 27 — 210 Corporation Commission of Oklahoma v. A., T. & S. Fe Ry. Co.... 22 — 160 Corporation Commission of Oklahoma v. A. & S. Ry. Co 26 — 520 Corporation Commission of Oklahoma v. C, R. L & P. Ry. Co 17 — 379 Cosby V. R. T. Co 23—72 Cosmopolitan Shipping Co. v. H.-A. P. Co 13 — 266 Council V. W. & A. R. R. Co 1—339 Coxe Bros. & Co. v. L. V. R. R. Co 4—535 Crane Iron Works v. C. R. R. of N. J 17-514 Crane R. R. Co. v. P. & R. Ry. Co 15-248 Crescent Coal & Mining Co. v. B. & O. R. R. Co 20-559 Cressey & Co. v. C, M. & St. P. Ry. Co 18—132 Crews V. R. & D. R. R. Co 1—401 Crombie & Co. v. S. P. Co 19—561 Crutchfield & Woolfolk v. L. & N. R. R. Co 14—558 Crutchfield & Woolfolk v, L. & N. R. R. Co 17—302 Crutchfield & Woolfolk v. S. P. Co 24—651 Dallas Freight Bureau v. A. & N. W. R. R. Co 9—68 Dallas Freight Bureau v. G. C. & S. Fe Ry. Co 12—223 Dallas Freight Bureau v. M., K. & T. Ry. Co 12—427 Dallas Freight Bureau v. T. & P. R. R. Co 8—33 Daniels v. C, R. I. & P. Ry. Co 6—458 Danville Brick Co. v. C. & N. W. Ry. Co 20—239 Danville v. Southern Ry. Co 8 — 409 Danville v. Southern Ry. Co 8—571 Darling & Co. v. B. & O. R. R. Co 15— 79 Davies v. I. C. R. R. Co 16—376 Davies v. L. & N. R. R. Co 18—540 Davis Sewing Machine Co. v. P., C, C, & St. L, R. R. Co 22—291 Dawson Board of Trade v. C. of G. Ry. Co 8—142 De Camp Bros. & Yule Iron, Coal & Coke Co, v. V. & S. W. Ry. Co. 22—274 De Cou V. Penna. R. R. Co 12—160 Delaware State Grange v. N. Y., P. & N. R. R. Co 4—588 Dells Paper & Pulp Co. v. C. & N. W. Ry. Co 20—419 Delray Salt Co. v. P. R. R. Co 18—259 Deming Lumber Co. v. S. P. Co , 24-598 Denison Light & Power Co. v. M., K. & T. Ry. Co 10—337 Derr Manfg. Co. v. P. R. R. Co 9—646 Desel-Boettcher Co. v. K. C. S. Ry. Co 12—220 Detroit Board of Trade v. G. T. Ry. of C 2—315 Detroit Chemical Works v. E. R. R. Co 13—363 Detroit Chemical Works v. N. C. Ry. Co 13—357 Detroit Reconsigning Case, The 25 — 392 Detroit Traffic Asso. v. L. S. & M. S. Ry. Co 21—257 Dewey Bros. Co. v. B. & O. R. R. Co 11—481 Diamond Mills v. B. & M. R. R. Co 9—311 TABLE OF CASES CITED. Dietz Lumber Co. v. A., T. & S. Fe Ry. Co 22— 75 Donahue v. C, M. & St. P. Ry. Co 18— 92 Douglas & Co. V. C, R. L & P. Ry. Co 16—232 Douglas & Co. V. C, R. L & P. Ry. Co 21— 97 Duldth & Iron Range R. R. Co. v. C, St. P., M. & O. Ry. Co 18—485 Duluth Log Co. V. M. & I. Ry. Co 15—192 Duluth Log Co. V. M. & I. Ry. Co 15—627 Duncan v. A., T. & S. Fe Ry. Co 6—85 Duncan & Co. v. N. C. & St. L. Ry. Co 16—590 Duncan & Co. v. N. C. & St. L. Ry. Co 21—186 Du Pre Co. v. B., R. & P. Ry. Co. . .- 23—226 Eastern Rate Advance Case 20 — ^243 Eastern Wheel Manfgrs. Asso. v. A. & V. Ry. Co 27—370 East St. Louis Cotton Oil Co. v. St. L. & S. F. R. R. Co 20— 37 East St. Louis Cotton Oil Co. v. St. L. & S. F. R. R. Co 24—588 East St. Louis Walnut Co. v. C, R. I. & P. Ry. Co 14—575 East St. Louis Walnut Co. v. M. P. Ry. Co... 14—553 Eaton V. C, H. & D. Ry. Co 11—610 Eau Claire Board of Trade v. C, M. & St. P. Ry. Co 5—264 Edelsten v. P. R. R. Co 26—359 Edgar & Son, W. H., v. L. & N. R. R. Co 26—181 Edwards & Bradford Lumber Co. v. C, B. & Q. R. R. Co 25— 93 Edwards v. N. C. & St. L. Ry. Co 12—247 Eichberg & Hirsch v. F. R. R. Co • 12—438 Eichenberg v. S. P. Co 14—250 Elk Cement & Lime Co. v, B. & O. R. R. Co 22— 84 Enterprise Fuel Co. v. P. R. R. Co 16—219 Enterprise Manfg. Co. v. G. R. R. Co 12—130 Enterprise Manfg. Co. v. G. R. R. Co 12—451 Enterprise Transpn. Co. v. P. R. R. Co 12—326 Eschner v. P. R. R. Co 18— 60 Evans v. O. R. & N. Co 1—325 Evans v. U. P. R. R. Co 6—520 Evans & Howard Fire Brick Co. v. St. L. I. M. & S. Ry. Co 25—141 Export Rate Case 8 — 214 Export Rates from Points East and West Mississippi River 8 — 185 Export Shipping Co. v. W. R. R. Co 14 — 437 Fairmount Creamery Co. v. P., C, C. & St. L. R. R. Co 22—261 Farmers, Merchants & Shippers Club of Kans. v. A., T. & S. Fe Ry- Co 12—351 Farmers, Merchants & Shippers Club of Kansas City v. C, R. I. & P. Ry. Co 12—351 Farmers Warehouse Co. v. L. & N. R. R. Co 12 457 Farmers Warehouse Co. v. L. & N. R. R. Co 12 520 Farmington Board of Trade v. C, M. & St. P. Ry. Co 1 215 Farrar & Co. v. E., T. V. & G. R. R. Co 1—480 Farrar v. S. Ry. Co H 64f) Fathauer v. St. L., I. M. & S. Ry. Co '..'.'.'.'.'. '. '. '. '. 18—517 Federal Sugar Refining Co. v. B. & O. R. R. Co 17 40 Federal Sugar Refining Co. v. B. & O. R. R. Co 20 200 Fels & Co. V. P. R. R. Co ' 23—483 Ferguson Saw Mill Co. v. St. L., I. M. & S. Ry. Co 18-391 Ferguson Saw Mill Co. v. St. L., I. M. & S. Ry. Co .'.'.'!.' 18—396 Field V. S. Ry. Co 13 298 Florida Fruit & Vegetable Shippers Protective Asso. v. A. C. L. R- R- Co 14—476 Florida Fruit & Vegetable Shippers Protective Asso. v. A C L R. R. Co ■ 17 552 Florida Fruit & Vegetable Shippers Protective Asso. v. A. C. L. R. R. Co 22 11 Flour City Steamship Co. v. L. V. R. R. Co ...!..!.... 24 179 Folmer & Co. v. G. N. Ry. Co 15 33 Food Products Case 4 116 Forest City Freight Bureau v. A. A. R. R. Co ..............! 18 205 TABLE OF CASES CITED. Forest City Freight Bureau v. A., T. & S. Fe Ry. Co 13—295 Fort Dodge Commercial Club v. I. C. R. R. Co 16—572 Fort Smith Traffic Bureau v. St. L. & S. F. R. R. Co 13-651 Foster Lumber Co. v. A., T. & S. Fe Ry. Co 15— 56 Frederick Brick Works v. N. C. Ry. Co 12— 13 Freeman Lumber Co. v. St. L., I. M. & S. Ry. Co 19 — 348 Freight Bureau Cincinnati Chamber of Commerce v. C, N. O. & T. P. Ry. Co ; 6-195 Freight Bureau Cincinnati Chamber of Commerce v. C, N. O. & T. P- Ry- Co. 7—180 Frye & Bruhn v. N. P. Ry. Co 13—501 Fuller & Co. V. P., C. & Y. Ry. Co 17—594 Fulton V. C, St. P., M. & O. R. R. Co 1—104 Gaines v. S. A. L. Ry. Co 16—471 Galveston Commercial Asso. v. A., T. & S. Fe Ry. Co 25 — ^216 Gamble-Robinson Commission Co. v. N. P. Ry. Co 14 — 523 Gamble-Robinson Commission Co. v. St. L., L M. & S. Ry. Co 22 — 138 General Chemical Co. v. N. & W. Ry. Co 15—349 General Electric Co. v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. R. Co 14—237 Gentry v. A., T. & S. Fe Ry. Co 13—171 George's Creek Basin Coal Co. v. B. & O. R. R. Co 14 — 127 Georgia-Carolina Brick Co. v. S. Ry. Co 20 — 148 Georgia Peach Growers Asso. v. A,. C, L. R. R. Co 10 — 255 Georgia Railroad Commission v. Clyde S. S. Co 5 — 324 Gerke Brewing Co. v. L. & N. R. R. Co 5—596 Germain Co. v. N. O. & N. E. R. R. Co 17— 22 Gilmore & Co. v. C. & N. W. Ry. Co 25—403 Glade Coal Co. v. B. & O. R. R. Co 10—226 Globe Milling Co. v. C, M. & St. P. Ry. Co 24—594 Goflf-Kirby Coal Co. v. B. & L. E. R. R. Co 13—383 Goldenberg v. Clyde S. S. Co 20—527 Goodhue v. C. G. W. Ry. Co 11—683 Gottron Bros. Co. v. G. & W. R. R. Co 28— 38 Grain Shippers Asso. of Northwest Iowa v. I. C. R. R. Co 8—158 Grand Junction Chamber of Commerce v. D. & R. G. Ry. Co 23 — 115 Grand Junction Mining & Fuel Co. v. C. M. Ry. Co 16—452 Greater Des Moines Committee v. C. G. W. Ry. Co 14 — 294 Greater Des Moines Committee v. C, M. & St. P. Ry. Co 18 — 73 Greater Des Moines Committee v. C, R. I. & P. Ry. Co 17 — 54 Greater Des Moines Committee v. C, R. I. & P. Ry. Co 17 — 57 Greater Des Moines Committee v. M. & St. L. R. R. Co 18 — 608 Green v. A. G. S. R. R. Co 19—458 Green Bay Business Men's Asso. v. L. S. & M. S. Ry. Co IS — 59 Griffee v. B. & M. R. R. R. Co 2—301 Gump V. B. & O. R. R. Co 14— 98 Gund & Co. V. C, B. & Q. R. R. Co 18—364 Gund & Co. V. C, B. & Q. R. R. Co 25—326 Gustin V. A., T. & S. Fe Ry. Co 8—277 Gustin V. B. & M. R. R. R. Co 8—481 Gustin V. I. C. R. R. Co 7—376 Haddock v. D., L. & W. R. R. Co 4—296 Hafer Lumber Co. v. C. & N. W. Ry. Co 25— 27 Haines v. C, R. I. & P. Ry. Co 13—214 Hamilton & Brown v. C, R. & C. R. R. Co 4—686 Hampton Board of Trade v. N. C. & St. L. Ry. Co 8—503 Hanna Coal Co. v. N. P. Ry. Co 16—289 Harbor City Wholesale Co. v. S. P. Co 19—323 Hardie Manfg. Co. v. O. R. R. &. N. Co 24—545 Harvard v. Penna. Co 4 — 212 Harvey v. L. & N. R. R. Co 5—153 Harwell v. C. & W. R. R. Co 1—236 Hawkins v. L. S. & M. S. Ry. Co 9—207 Hayden & Westcott Lumber Co. v. G. & S. I. R. R. Co ' 14—537 Heard v. G. R. R. Co 1—428 TABLE OF CASES CITED. Heck & Petree v. E. T. V. & G. Ry. Co 1—495 Hecker, Jones, Jewell Milling Co. v. B. & O. R. R. Co 14 — 356 Henderson Elevator Co. v. I. C. R. R. Co 17 — 573 Hennepin Paper Co, v. N. P. Ry. Co 12—535 Hettler Lumber Co. v. G. & S. I. R. R. Co 21— 14 Hewins v. N. Y., N. H. & H. R. R. Co '. 10—221 Hezel Milling Co. v. St. L., A. & T. H. Ry.' Co 5-57 Highland Steel & Iron Co. v. V. R. R. Co 18—601 Hill V. N. C. & St. L. R. R. Co 6—343 Hill V. P. R. R. Co 25-650 Hillsdale Coal & Coke Co. v. P. R. R. Co 19—356 Hillsdale Coal & Coke Co. v. P. R. R. Co 23—186 Hilton Lumber Co. v. W. & W. R. R. Co 9—17 Hitchman Coal & Coke Co. v. B. & O. R. R. Co 16—512 Holbrook v. St. P., M. & M. R. R. Co 1—102 Holdzkom v. M. C. Ry. Co 9—42 Holland Blow Stave Co. v. A. C. L. R. R. Co 24— 81 Holmes & Co. v. S. Ry. Co 8—570 Hood & Sons v. D. & H. Co 17-15 Hope Cotton Oil Co. v. T. & P. Ry. Co 10—696 Hope Cotton Oil Co. v. T. & P. Ry. Co 12—265 Houston Structural Steel Co. v. W. R. R. Co 18—208 Howard Mills Co. v. M. P. Ry. Co 12—258 Howell V. N. Y., L. E. R. R. Co 2—272 Huerfano Coal Co. v. C. & S. R. R. Co 28—502 Humboldt S. S. Co. v. W., P. & Y. R 19—105 Humboldt S. S. Co. v. W., P. & Y. R 25-136 Hurlburt v. L. S. & M. S. Ry. Co 2—122 Hussey v. C, R. L & P. Ry. Co 13—366 Hutchinson Salt Case 10 — 1 Hydraulic Press Brick Co. v. M. & O. R. R. Co 19—530 Hydraulic Press Brick Co. v. St. L. & S. F. R. R. Co 13—342 Imperial Coal Co. v. P. & L. E. R. R. Co 2—618 Independent Refiners Asso. v. P. R. R. Co 6 — 52 Independent Refiners Asso. v. W. N. Y. & P. R. R. Co 5 — 415 Independent Refiners Asso. v. W. N. Y. & P. R. R. Co 6—378 Indiana Steel & Wire Co. v. C, R. I. & P. Ry. Co 16—155 Indianapolis Freight Bureau v. C, C, C. & St. L. Ry. Co 15 — 370 Indianapolis Freight Bureau v. C, C, C. & St. L. Ry. Co 15—504 Indianapolis Freight Bureau v. C, C, C. & St. L. Ry. Co 16 — 56 Indianapolis Freight Bureau v. C, C, C. & St. L. Ry. Co 23 — 195 Indianapolis Freight Bureau v. C, C, C. & St. L. Ry. Co 26 — S3 Indianapolis Freight Bureau v. P. R. R. Co 15 — 567 Industrial Railways Case 29 212 In jre Advance of Charges for Switching at Chicago 24 — 660 Advances on Coal within Chicago Switching District 27.=— 71 Advances in Rates between Miss, and Mo. Rivers 21 — 546 Advances in Rates by Carriers in C. F. A. Territory 20 — 243 Advances in Rates by Carriers in W. T. L. Territory 20 307 Advances in Rates on Cement 24 290 Advances in Rates on Cement Originating in C. F. A. Ter. 22 — 50 Advances in Rates on Cement Plaster 21 591 Advances in Rates on Coal by C. & O. Ry. Co 22 604 Advances in Rates on Flax Seed 25 337 Advances in Rates on Grain 21 22 Advances in Rates on Iron Ore 26 675 Advances in Rates on Lemons 23 27 Advances in Rates on Locomotives and Tenders 21 103 Advances in Rates on Lumber from. A. G. S. Ry. Co 24 686 Advances in Rates on Potatoes 25 159 Advances in Rates on Sand and Gravel 24 249 Alleged Unlawful Rates on Grain by A., T. & S. Fe Ry. Co. . 6 33 Alleged Unreasonable Rates on Meats 22 160 Alleged Violations of Act by St. L. & S. F. Ry. Co.....'.'!"'. 8—290 TABLE OF CASES CITED. Alleged Violations of 4th Section by A., T. & S. Fe Ry. Co. . 6— 61 Allowances for Transfer of Sugar at New York City 14 — 619 Allowances to Elevators by U. P. R. R. Co 10—309 Allowances to Elevators by U. P. R. R. Co 12— 85 Allowances to Elevators by U. P. R. R. Co 14—315 Application and Use of Mileage Tickets 23 — 95 Application of A., T. & S. Fe Ry. Co. for Suspension of 4th Section 7—593 Application of F. W. Clark 3—649 Application of S. P. Co. for Relief under 4th Section 22 — 366 Application for Relief from Section 4 on Salt Rates 24 — 192 Atlanta & West Point R. R. Co 3— 19 Authority for Making and Filing Joint Tariffs 6 — 267 Bills of Lading 14—346 Cancellation of Joint Rates with C, Z. & G. R. R. Co 27—353 Car Shortage, etc 12 — 561 Charges for Transportation and Refrigeration of Fruit 10 — 360 Charges for Transportation and Refrigeration of Fruit 11 — 129 Chicago, St. Paul & Kansas City Ry. Co 2—231 Chicago Switching Charges 28 — 677 Clark , 3—649 Class and Commodity Rates from St. Louis 11 — 238 Colorado Free Pass Investigation , 26 — 491 Consolidation and Combination of Carriers 12 — 277 Contracts of Express Companies for Free Transportation.. 16 — 246 Corn and Corn Products 1 1 — 212 Demurrage on Privately Owned Tank Cars 13 — 378 Differential Rates to and from North Atlantic Ports 11 — 13 Disabled Soldiers & Sailors 1 — 28 Divisions of Joint Rates to Terminal Roads 10 — 385 Export and Domestic Rates 8 — 214 Export Rates from Points east and west Miss. River 8 — 185 Export Trade of Boston 1—24 Express Companies 1 — 349 Express Rates 24 — 380 Food Products 4 — 48 Food Products 4 — 116 Form, etc., of Rate Schedules 6 — 267 Free Carriage of Passengers by B. & M. R. R. Co 5 — 69 Free Transportation of Newspaper Employees 12 — IS Freight Rates between Memphis and Points in Arkansas.... 11 — 180 Import Rates 24— 78 Import Rates 24—678 Indian Supplies 1 — 15 Inmates of National Homes 1 — 28 Interior Iowa Cities Case 28 — 64 Iowa Barb Steel Wire Co 1 — 17 Joint Tariffs, Authority for Filing 6 — 267 Joint Water and Rail Lines 2 — 645 Jurisdiction over Rail and Water Carriers Operating in Alaska 19 — 81 Jurisdiction over Water Carriers 15 — 205 Kansas City, Memphis & Birmingham R. R. Co 8 — 121 Lake and Rail Class Rates from Pennsylvania Points 26—669 Louisville & Nashville R. R. Co 1—31 Louisville & Nashville R. R. Co., Coal Rates on S — 466 Lumber Rates from the South to Ohio River Crossings 25 — 50 Lumber Rates of V. S. & P. Ry. Co 20—575 Milling in Transit Rates 17—113 Mississippi River Case 28 — 47 Order of Railway Conductors 1 — 8 Party Rate Tickets <. 12— 95 Passenger Tariflfs 2 — 649 Passes to Transfer and Baggage Express Companies 12 — 39 Pipe Lines 24 — 1 Pre-cooling and Pre-icing Regulations 23 — 267 Proposed Advance in Freight Rates 9 — 382 TABLE OF CASES CITED. Protection of Potato Shipments in Winter 26 — 68! Railroad-Telegraph Contracts 12 — 10 Rates between Memphis and Points in Arkansas 11 — 180 Rates From St. Louis to Texas Common Points 11 — ^238 Rates from the Walsenburg Coal Field 26 — 85- Rates on Coal from L. & N. R. R. Co 5^466 Rates on Coal to Clinton, Iowa 26 — 179 Rates on Coal to Davenport, Iowa 26 — 140 Rates on Coal to Milwaukee, etc 27 — 223 Rates on Corn and Corn Products 11 — 212 Rates on Corn and Corn Products 11 — ^220 Rates on Corn, etc., from Mississippi River Points.... 11 — ^227 Rates on Cotton 23 — 404 Rates on Cotton by K. C, M. & B. R. R. Co 8—121 Rates on Cotton Seed and Its Products 28 — 219 Rates on Excelsior and Flax Tow from St. Paul 26 — 689 Rates pn Export and Domestic Grain ". . . . 8 — 214 Rates on Fresh Meats and Packing-house Products 23 — 652 Rates on Grain by A., T. & S. Fe Ry. Co 7—33 Rates on Grain by A., T. & S. Fe Ry. Co 7—240 Rates on Grain Products to Texas 27 — -282 Rates on Hay from Northwest to Chicago 25 — 680 Rates on Linseed Oil 26 — 265 Rates on Live Stock from Southwest Points 23 — 656 Rates on Live Stock and Packing-house Products 22 — 160 Rates on Live Stock and Packing-house Products 28 — 332 Rates on Lumber from Mississippi to Eastern Points 27 — 6 Rates on Lumber from Oregon, etc., to Eastern Points 27 — 609 Rates on Lumber from Texas, etc 28 — 471 Rates on Oil in Tank and Barrels 2 — 365 Rates on Rice and Rice Products 21 — 124 Rates on Salt 24—192 Rates on Scrap-iron between Duluth and Chicago 28 — 467 Rates on Stock, Cattle and Sheep 23 — 7 Rates on Sugar by L. Ry. & N. Co 22—558 Rates on Sugar from New Orleans to Sterling, Ills 27 — 122 Rates on Tin Cans between California and Other Points 27 — 298 Rates on Wool 23—151 Rates on Wool 25—185 Rates on Wool 25—675 Reduced Rates on Packing House Products 21 — 68. Reduced Rates on Returned Shipments 19 — 409 Released Rates 13 — 550 Relative Tank and Barrel Rates on Oil 2 — 365 Restricted Rates 20 — 426 St. Louis & San Francisco R. R. Co 8—290 St. Louis Millers Asso '. 1— 20 Southern Railway & Steamship Asso 1 — 31 Substitution of Tonnage at Transit Points 18 — 280 Substitution of Tonnage at Transit Points 24 — 340 Suspension of Western Classification No. 51 25 — 442 Tank and Barrel Rates on Oil 2 — 365 Tariffs of Atlanta & West Point R. R. Co 3—19 Tariffs of Columbus & Western Ry. Co 1 — 626 Tariffs of Transcontinental Lines 2 — 324 Tariffs on Export and Import Traffic 10 — 55 Texas Common Point Case 26 — 528 Through Passenger Routes via Portland, Ore 16 — 300 Through Routes and Rates 12 — 163 Traders and Travelers Union 1 — 8 Transcontinental Commodity Rates, West-bound 26 — 456 Transcontinental Lines, Tariffs of ; 2 — 324 Transit Case .' 26 — ^204 Transportation of Coal by L. & N. R. R. Co 5 — 466 Transportation of Company Material 22 — 439 Transportation of Salt from Hutchinson, Kans 10 — 1 TABLE OF CASES CITED. Transportation of Salt from Michigan to Missouri River 10 — 148 Unlawful Rates in Transportation of Cotton 8 — 121 Violation of 4th Section by A., T. & S. Fe Ry. Co 7—61 Violation of 4th Section by A, T. & S. Fe Ry. Co 7—593 Wharfage Charges of the Galveston Wharf Co 23— S3.S Weighing of Freight : 28 — 7 Western Classification No. 51 25 — 442 When a Cause of Action Accrues 15 — 201 International Agricultural Corpn. v. L. & N. R. R. Co 22—488 International Salt Co. v. G. & W. R. R. Co 20—530 International Salt Co. v. P. R. R. Co 20—539 Interstate Remedy Co. v. Am. Express Co 16 — 436 Iowa State Board of Railroad Comrs. v. A., E. R. R. Co 28—193 Jacoby v. P. R. R. Co 19—392 James & Abbott v. C. P. Ry. Co 5—612 James & Abbott v. B. & M. R. R. Co 17—273 James & Abbott v. E., T. V. & G. Ry. Co 3—225 James & Mayor Buggy Co. v. C, N. O. & T. P. Ry. Co 4—744 Jenks Lumber Co. v. S. Ry. Co ■ 17 — 58 Jennison v. G. N. Ry. Co 18—1 13 Jobbins v. C. & N. W. Ry. Co 17—297 Johnson v. St. L. & S. F. R. R. Co 12— 73 Johnson & Co. v. A., T. & S. Fe Ry. Co 21—637 Johnson-Larimer Dry Goods Co. v. A., T. & S. Fe Ry. Co 6-568 Johnson- Larimer Dry Goods Co. v. A., T. & S. Fe Ry. Co 12— 47 Johnson-Larimer Dry Goods Co. v. A., T. & S. Fe Ry. Co 13—388 Johnson-Larimer Dry Goods Co. v. N. V. & T. S. S. Co 12— 58 Johnson-Larimer Dry Goods Co. v. W. R. R. Co 12 — 51 Joice & Co. V. I. C. R. R. Co 15-239 Jones V. St. L. & S. F. R, R. Co 12—144 Jones V. S. Ry. Co 18—150 Joynes v. P. R. R. Co 17—361 Joynes v. P. R. R. Co' 21—458 Kalispell Lumber Co. v. G. N. Ry. Co 16 164 Kansas City Hay Co. v. C, M. & St. P. Ry. Co 16—100 Kansas City Hay Co. v. St. L. & S. F. R. R. Co 14—631 Kansas City Hay Dealers Asso. v. M. P. Ry. Co 14 — 597 Kansas City Tranpsn. Bureau v. A., T. & S. Fe Ry. Co IS — 491 Kansas City Transpn. Bureau v. A., T. & S. Fe Ry. Co 16—195 Kuflfman Milling Co. v. M. P. R. R. Co : 4 417 Kaul Lumber Co. v. C. of G. Ry. Co 20 — 450 Kaye & Carter Lumber Co. v. C, M. & St. P. Ry. Co . i 14—604 Kaye & Carter Lumber Co. v. M. & I. Ry. Co 16—285 Kehoe & Co. v. C. & W. C. Ry. Co 11—166 Kemble v. B. & A. R. R. Co 8—110 Kemble v. L. S. & M. S. Ry. Co 5—166 Kennedy & Co. v. St. L. S. W. Ry. Co „ 22—277 Kentucky & Indiana Bridge Co. v. L. & N. R. R. Co 2—162 Kentucky Wagon Manfg. Co. v. I. C. R. R. Co 18—360 Keogh V. C, B. & Q. R. R. Co 24—606 Kiel Woodenware Co. v. C, M. & St. P. Ry. Co 18—242 Kile & Morgan Co. v. Deepwater Ry. Co 15 — 235 Kindel v. Adams Express Co... 13 — 475 Kindel v. A., T. & S. Fe Ry. Co 8—608 Kindel v. A., T. & S. Fe Ry. Co 9—606 Kindel v. B. & A. R. R. Co 11—495 Kindel v. N. Y., N. H. & H. R. R. Co 15-555 Kindelon v. S. P. Co 17—251 King & Co. V. N. Y., N. H. & H. R. R. Co '4-251 Kiser Co. v. C. of G. Ry. Co 17—430 Knox V. W. R. R. Co 18—185 Koch V. P. R. R. Co 10-675 KuUz V. P. R. R. Co 16—410 TABLE OF CASES CITED. La Crosse Manfgrs. & Jobbers Union v. C, M. & St. P. Ry. Co 1—629 Lagrange Chamber of Commerce v. A. & W. P. R. R. Co 28 — 178 Lamb, McGregor & Co. v. C. & N. W. Ry. Co 22—346 Laning-Harris Coal & Grain Co. v. A., T. & S. Fe Ry. Co 12-^79 Laning-Harris Coal & Grain Co. v. M. P. Ry. Co 13—154 Laning-Harris Coal & Grain Co. v. St. L. & S. F. R. R. Co 15— 37 Laona & Northern R. R. Co. v. M., St. P. & S. S. M. R. R. Co 24—639 Larrison v. C. & G. T. Ry. Co 1—147 Larrowe Milling Co. v. C. & N. W. Ry. Co 17—443 Larscn Canning Co. v. C. & N. W. Ry. Co 13 — 286 Lauer & Son v. N. C. O. Ry. Co 17^^88 League of Southern Idaho Commercial Clubs v. O. S. L. R. R. Co.. 18 — 562 Lebanon Commercial Club v. L. & N. R. R. Co 25-277 Leggett & Piatt Spring Bed Manfg. Co. v. M. P. Ry. Co 22—513 Lehmann, Higginson & Co. v. S. P. Co 4 — 1 Lehmann, Higginson & Co. v. T. & P. Ry. Co 5-44 Leonard v. K. C. S. Ry. Co 13—573 Liebold Co. v. D., L. & W. R. R. Co 17—503 Lincoln Board of Trade v. B. & M. R. R. Co 2—147 Lincoln Board of Trade v. M. P. Ry. Co 2—155 Lincoln Board of Trade v. U. P. Ry. Co 3—221 Lincoln Commercial Club v. C, R. I. & P. Ry. Co 13—319 Lincoln Creamery v. U. P. Ry. Co 5 — 156 Lindsay Bros. v. B. & O. S. W. R. R. Co 16— 6 Lippman & Co. v. I. C. R. R. Co 2—584 Little Rock & Memphis R. R. Co. v. E., T. V. & G. R. R. Co 3— 1 Little Rock Chamber of Commerce v. St L., I. M. & S. Ry. Co 26-341 Lof tus V. Pullman Co 18 — 135 Logan V. C. & N. W. Ry. Co 2—604 Loud V. South Carolina R. R. Co 5 — 529 Loup Creek Colliery Co. v. V. Ry. Co 12 — 471 Lull Carriage Co. v. C, K. & S. Ry. Co 19 — 15 Lumbermen's Exchange of St. Louis v. A. & S. R. R. R. Co 24 — 220 Lynah & Read v. B. & O. R. R. Co : 18— 38 Lynchburg Board of Trade v. O. D. S. S- Co 6—632 McCloud River Lumber Co. v. S. P. Co 24 — 89 McGrew v. M. P. Ry. Co 8—630 McLean Lumber Co. v. L. & N. R. R. Co 22—349 McMorran v. G. T. R. R. Co 3—252 McRae Terminal Ry. Co. v. S. Ry. Co 12—270 MacGillis & Gibbs Co. v. C. & E. L R. R. Co 16— 40 Macloon v. B. & M. R. R. Co 9—64'' Macloon v. C. & N. W. Ry. Co " 5—84 Males Co. v. L. & H. Ry. Co 17—280 Manfgrs. & Jobbers Union of Mankato v. M. & St. L. R. R. Co. .... 1—227 Manfgrs. & Jobbers Union of Mankato v. M. & St. L. R. R. Co 4 — 79 Manfgrs. & Merchants Asso. of New Albany v. A. & A. R. R. Co 24 — 331 Manufacturers Ry. Co. v. St. L., I. M. & S. Ry. Co 21 — 304 Marian Coal Co. v. D., L. & W. R. R. Co 24—140 Marian Coal Co. v. D., L. & W. R. R. Co 25— 14 Maricopa County Commercial Club v. M. & P. R. R. Co 22 279 Maricopa County Commercial Club v. P. & E. R. R. Co 22 — 221 Maricopa County Commercial Club v. S. F., P. & P. Ry. Co 19 257 Maricopa County Commercial Club v. S. F., P. & P. Ry. Co 21—329 Maricopa County Commercial Club v. S. P. Co 22 429 Maricopa County Commercial Club v. W., F. & Co '. 16 182 Maritime Exchange v. P. R. R. Co 21 81 Marshall & Michel Grain Co. v. St. L. & S. F. R. R. Co. . 16—385 Marshall Oil Co. V. C. & N. W. Ry. Co 14—210 Marshall Oil Co. v. C. & N. W. Ry. Co 26—575 Marten v. L. & N. R. R. Co 9—581 Martin v. C, B. & Q. R. R. Co ' 2—25 Martin v. S. P. Co " 2 1 TABLE OF CASES CITED. Mason v. C, R. I. & P. Ry. Co 12— 61 Massee & Felton Lumber Co. v. S. Ry. Co 23—110 Masurite Explosive Co. v. P. & L. E. R. R. Co 13— 40S Mattingly v. P. R. R. Co 3— S92 Mayor, etc., of Boston, Ga., v. A. C. L. R. R. Co 24— SO Mayor, etc., of Tifton v. L. & N. R. R. Co 9—160 Mayor, etc., of Wichita v. A., T. & S. Fe Ry. Co 9— S34 Mayor, etc., of Wichita v. A„ T. & S. Fe Ry. Co : 9— 5S8 Mayor, etc., of Wichita v. M. P. Ry. Co 10— 35 Mayor, etc., of Vienna, Ga., v. G. S. & F. Ry. Co 28—173 Meeker & Co. v. L. V. R. R. Co 21—129 Meeker & Co. v. L. V. R. R. Co 23—480 Memphis Cotton Oil Co. v. I. C. R. R. Co 17—313 Memphis Freight Bureau v. Ft. S. & W. R. R. Co 13— 1 Memphis Freight Bureau v. K. C. S. Ry. Co 17— 90 Memphis Freight Bureau v. L. & N. R. R. Co 26—402 Memphis Freight Bureau v. St. L. & S. F. R. R. Co 21—113 Memphis Freight Bureau v. St. L., L M. & S. Ry. Co 22-548 Memphis Freight Bureau v. St. L. S. W. Ry. Co 18 — 67 Memphis Freight Bureau v. St. L. S. W. Ry. Co 20 — 33 Memphis Freight Bureau v. St. L. S. W. Ry. Co 22—537 Memphis Grain & Hay Asso. v. St. L. & S. F. R. R. Co 24 — 609 Menefee Lumber Co. v. T. & P. Ry. Co 15 — 49 Merchants & Manfgrs. Asso. v. A. C. L. R. R. Co 22 — 467 Merchants & Mnfgrs. Asso. of Baltimore v. P. R. R. Co 23 — 474 Merchants Cotton Press & Storage Co. v. L C. R. R. Co 17 — 98 Merchants Freight Bureau of Little Rock v. M. V. R. R. Co 13—243 Merchants Traffic Asso. v. A., T. & S. Fe Ry. Co 13—283 Merchants Traffic Asso. v. N. Y., N. H. & H. R. R. Co 13-225 Merchants Union of Spokane v. N. P. Ry. Co 5 — 478 Meridian Fertilizer Factory v. V. S. & P. Ry. Co 20 — 554 Merle Co. v. A., T. & S. Fe Ry. Co 17—471 Merle Co. v. N. Y., N. H. & H. R. R. Co 17^*75 Metropolitan Paving Brick Co. v. A. A. R. R. Co 17—197 Michigan Box Co. v. F. & P. M. R. R. Co 6—335 Michigan Hardwood Manfgrs. Asso. v. Transcontinental Freight Bureau 22 — 387 Michigan Hardwood Manfgrs. Asso. v. Transcontinental Freight Bureau 27— 32 Milburn Wagon Co. v. L. S. & M. S. Ry. Co 18—144 Milburn Wagon Co. v. L. S. & M. S. Ry. Co 22— 93 Milk Producers Protective Asso. v. D., L. & W. R. R. Co 7—92 Millinery Jobbers Asso. v. Am. Express Co 20 — 498 Milwaukee Chamber of Commerce v. C, M. & St. P. Ry. Co 7—481 Milwaukee Chamber of Commerce v. F. & P. M. R. R. Co 2—553 Miner v. N. Y.,.N. H. & H. R. R. Co '. 11—422 Minneapolis Threshing Machine Co. v. C, M. & St. P. Ry. Co 21—181 Minneapolis Threshing Machine Co. v. C, R. I. & P. Ry. Co 13—128 Minneapolis Traffic Asso. v C. & N. W. Ry. Co 23—432 Missouri & Illinois Coal Co. v. I. C. R. R. Co 22— 39 Missouri & Illinois Tie & Lumber Co. v. C, G. & S. Ry. Co 1—30 Missouri & Kansas Shippers Asso. v. A., T. & S. Fe Ry. Co 13 — 411 Missouri & Kansas Shippers Asso. v. M., K. & T. Ry. Co 12—483 Mitchell V. A., T. & S. Fe Ry. Co 12—324 Mobile Chamber of Commerce v. M. & O. R. R. Co 23—417 Moise Bros. Co. v. C, R. I. & P. Ry. Co 16—550 Monroe Progressive League v. St. L., I. .M. & S. Ry. Co 15 — 534 Montague & Co. v. A., T. & S. Fe Ry. Co. 17— 72 Montgomery Freight Bureau v. L. & N. R. R. Co 17 — 521 Montgomery Freight Bureau v. M. & O. R. R. Co 14 — 374 Montgomery Freight Bureau v. W. Ry. of A 14 — 150 Moore v. N. Y. & L. B. R. R. Co 20—557 Morgan v. M., K. & T. Ry. Co 12—525 Morgan Grain Co. v. A. C. L. R. R. Co 19—460 Morrell v. U. P. Ry. Co 6—121 Morris Iron Co. v. B. & O. R. R. Co 26—240 TABLE OF CASES CITED. Morristown Board of Trade v. A. C. L. R. R. Co ^^""?^? Morse Produce Co. v. C, M. & St. P. Ry. Co ^2— 48.5 Morse Produce Co. v. C, M. & St. P. Ry. Co ^^~i^i Morti V. C, M. & St. P. Ry. Co ^^—ili Mountain Ice Co. v. D., L. & W. R. R. Co 15—305 Mountain Ice Co. v. D., L. & W. R. R. Co 17—447 Mountain Ice Co. v. D., L. & W. R. R. Co 21—45 Mountain Ice Co. v. D., L. & W. R. R. Co 21—596 Mount Vernon Milling Co. v. C, M. & St. P. Ry. Co 7—194 Monroe & Sons v. M. C. R. R. Co 17— 27 Murphy Bros. v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. R. Co 17-^57 Murphy Bros. v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. R. Co 21—176 Murphy, Wasey & Co. v. W. R. R. Co ^ M Murray Lighterage & Transpn. Co. v. D. & H. Co 25 — 388 Muskogee Commercial Club v. M., K. & T. Ry. Co 12 — 312 Myer v. C, C, C. & St. L. Ry. Co 9—78 Myers v. P. R. R. Co 2—573 Myers v. Penna. Co 3 — 130 National Hay Asso. v. L. S. & M. S. Ry. Co 9—264 National Hay Asso. v. L. S. & M. S. Ry. Co 9—272 National League of Commission Merchants v. A. C. L. R. R. Co.... 20 — 132 National Lumber Co. v. S. P. L. A. & S. L. R. R. Co 15—434 National Lumber Exporters Asso. v. K. C. S. Ry. Co 25 — 78 National Machinery & Wrecking Co. v. P., C, C. & St. L. Ry. Co. . . 11—581 National Manfg. Co. v. A., T. & S. Fe Ry. Co 23— 86 National Mohair Growers Asso. v. A. T. & S. Fe Ry. Co 23—180 National Petroleum Asso. v. A. A. R. R. Co 14—272 National Petroleum Asso. v. C, M. & St. P. Ry. Co 14 — 287 National Petroleum Asso. v. M. P. Ry. Co 18 — 593 National Pole Co. v. C, St. P. & M. O. Ry. Co 18—618 National Refining Co. v. A., T. & S. Fe Ry. Co 18—389 National Refining Co. v. M., K. & T. Ry. Co 23—527 National Refining Co. v. M. P. Ry. Co 24 — 315 National Wholesale Lumber Dealers Asso. v. A. C. L. R. R. Co 14 — 154 Naylor & Co. v. L. V. R. R. Co 15— 9 Nebraska-Iowa Grain Co. v. U. P. Ry. Co 15 — 90 Nebraska Material Co. v. C, B. & Q. R. R. Co 20— 89 Nebraska State Railway Commission v. C, B. & Q. R. R. Co 23—121 Nebraska State Railway Commission v. U. P. Ry. Co 13 — 349 New Albany Box & Basket Co. v. I. C. R. R. Co 16—315 New Jersey Fruit Exchange v. C. R. R. of N. J 2 — 142 Newland v. N. P. Ry. Co 6—131 New Orleans Board of Trade v. I. C. R. R. Co 17—496 New Orleans Board of Trade v. I. C. R. R. Co 23—465 New Orleans Board of Trade v. L. & N. R. R. Co 17—231 New Orleans Cotton Exchange v. C. N. O. & T. P. Ry. Co 2—375 New Orleans Cotton Exchange v. I. C. R. R. Co • 3 — 534 New Orleans Cotton Exchange v. L., N. O. & T. Ry. Co 4 — 694 New Pittsburg Coal Co. v. H. V. Ry. Co 24—244 Newton Gum Co. v. C, B. & Q. R. R. Co 16—341 New York & Northern Ry. Co. v. N. Y. & N. E. R. R. Co 4—702 New York Board of Trade v. P. R. R. Co 4 — 447 New York Hay Exchange v. P. R. R. Co 14—178 New York, New Haven & Hartford R. R. Co. v. Piatt 7—323 New York Produce Exchange v. B. & O. R. R. Co 7—612 New York Produce Exchange v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. R. Co 3—137 Nicolai & Brady v. P. R. R. Co 2—131 Nicola, Stone & Myers Co. v. L. & N. R. R. Co 14 — 199 Noble V. B. & O. R. R. Co 20— 72 Noble V. B. & O. R. R. Co .' 22—432 Noble V. D. & T. S. L. R. R. Co 20— 60 Noble V. J., L. C. & E. R. R. Co 20—520 Nobles Bros. Grocery Co. v. Ft. W. & D. C. Ry. Co 12—242 NoUenberger v. M. P. Ry. Co 15 — 595 Norman Lumber Co. v. L. & N. R. R. Co 22 — 239 TABLE OF CASES CITED. Norman Lumber Co. v. L. & N. R. R. Co 29—565 North Bros. v. C, M. & St. P. Ry. Co 15— 70 North Bros. v. St. L. & S. F. R. R. Co 13—152 Northern Coal & Coke Co. v. C. & S. Ry. Co 16—369 Northern Lumber Manfg. Co. v. T. & P. Ry. Co 19— 54 North Fork Cannel Coal Co. v. A. A. R. R. Co 25—241 Northwestern Iowa Grain & Stock Shippers Asso. v. C. & N. W. Ry. Co 2—604 Ocheltree Grain Co. v. St. L. & S. F. R. R. Co.f 13— 46 Ohio Iron & Metal Co. v. W. R. R. Co 18—299 Oklahoma v. A., T. & S. Fe Ry. Co 14-516 Oklahoma v. C, R. L & P. Ry. Co 15— 42 Oklahoma & Arkansas Coal Traffic Bureau v. C, R. I. & P. Ry. Co.. 14—216 Omaha Cooperage Co. v. N. C. & St. L. Ry. Co 12-250 Omaha Grain Exchange v. C. & N. W. Ry. Co 19—424 Oregon & Washington Lumber Manfgrs Asso. v. S. P. Co 21 — 389 Oregon & Washington Lumber Manfgrs. Asso. v. U. P. Ry. Co.... 14 — 1 Oshkosh Logging Tool Co. v. C. & N. W. Ry. Co 14—109 Ottinger v. S. P. Co 1—144 Ottumwa Bridge Co. v. C, M. & St. P. Ry. Co 14—121 Ottumwa Commercial Asso. v. C, B. & Q. R. R. Co 17—413 Ozark Fruit Growers Asso. v. St. L. & S. F. R. R. Co 16—106 Ozark Fruit Growers Asso. v. St. L. & S. F. R. R. Co 16—134 Ozark Fruit Growers Asso. v. St. L. St S. F. R. R. Co 16—153 Pabst Brewing, Co. v. C, M. & St. P. Ry. Co 17—359 Pacific Coast Biscuit Co. v. S. P. & S. Ry. Co 20—546 Pacific Coast Lumber Manfgrs. Asso. v. N. P. Ry. Co 14 — 23 Pacific Coast Lumber Manfgrs. Asso. v. N. P. Ry. Co 14 — 51 Pacific Purchasing Co. v. C. & N. W. Ry. Co 12-549 Pacific Stationery & Printing Co. v. O. W. R. & N. Co 24—299 Paducah Board of Trade v. I. C. R. R. Co 29—583 Page V. D., L. & W. R. R. Co 6—148 Page V. D., L. & W. R. R. Co 6—548 Paine Bros. & Co. v. L. V. R. R. Co 7—218 Pankey v. R. & D. R. R. Co 3—658 Paper Mills Co. v. P. R. R. Co 12—438 Parks V. C. & M. V. R. R. Co 10— 47 Parlin & Orendorflf Plow Co. v. U. S. Express Co......: 26 — 561 Parmalee Case 12 — 39 Partridge Lumber Co. v. G. N. Ry. Co 17—276 Paxton Tie Co. v. D. S. R. R. Co". 10—422 Payne v. M., L. & T. R. & S. S. Co 15—185 Payne-Gardner Co. v. L. & N. R. R. Co 13—638 Peale, Peacock & Kerr v. C. R. R. of N. J , 18— 25 Pecos Mercantile Co. v. A., T. & S. Fe Ry. Co 13—173 Pennsylvania Co. v. L. N. A. & C. Ry. Co 3—223 Pennsylvania Millers State Asso. v. P. & R. R. R. Co 8—531 Penrod Walnut & Veneer Co. v. C, B. & Q. R. R. Co 15—326 Peoples Fuel & Supply Co. v. G. T. W. Ry. Co 27— 24 Perry v. F., C. & P. R. R. Co 5—97 Peters v. O. S. L. R. R. Co 20—598 Phelps & Co. V. T. & P. Ry Co '. . . 6—36 Phillips, Bailey & Co. v. L. & N. R. R. Co 8—93 Pittsburgh, Cincinnati & St. Louis Ry. Co. v. B. & O. R. R. Co 3—465 Pittsburgh Plate Glass Co. v. P., C, C. & St. L. Ry. Co 13— 87 Pittsburgh Steel Co. v. L. S. & M. S. Ry. Co 27—173 Pittsburgh Vein Operators Asso. v. P. Co 24 — 280 Place V. T.,' P. & W. Ry. Co 15—543 Planters Compress Co. v. C, C, C. & St. L. Ry. Co 11—382 Planters Gin & Compress Co. v. Y. & M. V. R. R. Co 16—131 Flatten Produce Co. v. K. L. S. & C. Ry. Co. 18—249 Ponchatoula Farmers Asso. v. I. C. R. R. Co 19 — 513 Poor Grain Co. v. C, B. & Q. R. R. Co 12—418 Poor Grain Co. v. C, B. ^ Q. R. R. Co 12—469 TABLE OF CASES CITED. Port Arthur Board of Trade v. A. & S. Ry. Co 27—388 Porter v. St. L. & S. F. R. R. Co 15— 1 Portland Chamber of Commerce v. O. R. & N. Co 19—265 Potlach Lumber Co. v. N. P. Ry. Co 14— 41 Potter Manfg. Co. v. C. & G. T. Ry. Co 5— 514 Poughkeepsie Iron Co. v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. R. Co 4—195 Powhatan Coal & Coke Co. v. N. & W. Ry. Co 13— 69 Pratt Lumber Co. v. C, L & L. Ry. Co 10— 29 Preston & Davis v. D., L. & W. R. R. Co 12—114 Proctor & Gamble v. C, H. & D. Ry. Co 4—87 Proctor & Gamble Co. v. C, H. & D. Ry. Co 4 — 443 Proctor & Gamble Co. v. C, H. & D. Ry. Co 9^40 Proctor & Gamble Co. v. C, H. & D. Ry. Co 19-556 Producers Pipe Line Co. v. St. L., L M. & S. Ry. Co 12—186 Providence Coal Co. v. P. & W. R. R. Co 1—107 Public Service Commission of Wash. v. N. P. Ry. Co 23 — 256 Public Service Commission of Wash. v. N. P. Ry. Co 26 — 272 Pueblo Transportation Asso. v. S. P. Co 14 — 82 Pulp & Paper Manfgns. Traffic Asso. v. C, M. & St. P. Ry. Co.... 27— 83 Pyle & Sons v. E., T., V. & G. Ry. Co 1—465 Rail & River Coal Co. v. B. & O. R. R. Co '. 14— 86 Railroad & Warehouse Commissioners of Mo. v. E. S. Ry. Co 7 — 69 Railroad Commission of Arkansas v. St. L., L M. & S. Ry. Co 24—292 Railroad Commission of Arkansas v. St L. & N. A. R. Co 12 — ^233 Railroad Commission of Florida v. S. F. & W. Ry. Co 5 — 13 Railroad Commission of Georgia v. Clyde S. S. Co 5^324 Railroad Commission of Indiana v. K. & I. B. & R. R. Co 14 — 563 Railroad Commission of Iowa v. I. C. R. R. Co 20 — 181 Railroad Commission of Kansas v. A., T. & S. Fe Ry. Co 8 — 304 Railroad Commission of Kansas v. A., T. & S. Fe Ry. Co 22—407 Railroad Commission of Kentucky v. L. & N. R. R. Co 10-^173 Railroad Commission of Louisiana v. St. L. S. W. Ry. Co 23 — 31 Railroad Commission of Nevada v. S. P. Co 19 — 238 Railroad Commission of Nevada v. S. P. Co 21 — 329 Railroad Commission of Ohio v. H. V. Ry. Co .' 12 — 398 Railroad Commission of Tennessee v. A. A. R. R. Co 17 — 418 Railroad Commission of Texas v. A., T. & S. Fe Ry. Co 20 — 463 Rainey & Rogers v. St. L. & S. F. R. R. Co 18— 88 Randolph Lumber Co. v. S. A. L. R. R Co 13—601 Raworth v. N. P. Ry. Co ; . 5—234 Rawson v. N., N. & M. V. Ry. Co ' 3—266 Raymond v. C, M. & St. P. Ry. Co 1—230 Rea vs. M. & O. R. R. Co 7—43 Receivers & Shippers Asso. of Cincinnati v. C, N. O. & T. P. Ry. Co. 18 — 440 Red Cloud Mining Co. v. S. P. Co 9—216 Red River Oil Co. v. T. & P. Ry. Co 23—438 Rehberg & Co. v. E. R. R. Co 17—508 Reliance Textile & Dye Works v. S. Ry. Co 13— 48 Rend v. C. & N. W. Ry. Co 2—540 Republic Metalware Co. v. E. R. R. Co 22—565 Reynolds v. W. N. Y. & P. R. R. Co 1—393 Rhinelander' Paper Co. v. M., St. P. & S. S. M. R. R. Co 26—104 Rhinelander Paper Co. v. N. P. Ry. Co 13—633 Rice V. A., T. & S. Fe Ry. Co 4—228 Rice V. C, W. & B. R. R. Co 3—186 Rice V. C, W. & B. R. R. Co 5—193 Rice V. G. R. R. Co 14—75 Rice V. L.- & N. R. R. Co 1—503 Rice, Robinson & Witherop v. W. N. Y. & P. R. R. Co 2—389 Rice, Robinson & Witherop v. W. N. Y. & P. R. R. Co 3—87 Rice. Robinson & Witherop v. W. N. Y, & P. R. R. Co 4—131 Rice, Robinson & Witherop v. W. N. Y. & P. R. R. Co 6—455 Richmond Elevator Co. v. P. M. R. R. Co 10 — 629 Rickards v. A. C. L. R. R. Co 23—239 Riddle, Dean & Co. v. B. & O. R. R. Co 1—372 TABLE OF CASES CITED. Riddle, Dean & Co. v. N. Y., L. E. & W. R. R. Co 1—594 Riddle, Dean & Co. v. P. & L. E. R. R. Co 1—374 Riddle, Dean & Co. v. P. & L. E. R. R. Co 1—490 Riverside Mills v. C. & W. C. Ry. Co '. 20—153 Riverside Mills v. Georgia R. R. Co 20^23 Riverside Mills v. S. Ry. Co 12—388 Roberts Cotton Oil Co. v. I. C. R. R. Co 21—248 Rock Springs Distilling Co. v. I. C. R. R. Co 27— 54 Rogers & Co. v. P. & R. Ry. Co 12—308 Romona-Oolitic Stone Co. v. V. R. R. Co 13—115 Roper Lumber-Cedar Co. v. C. & N. W. Ry. Co ■ 16—382 Rose V. B. & M. R. R. Co 18—427 Rosenbaum Bros. v. L. & N. R. R. Co 22—62 Rosenblatt & Sons v. C. & N. W. Ry. Co 18—261 Rossie Iron Ore Co. v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. R. Co 17—392 Roswell Commercial Club v. A., T. & S. Fe. Ry. Co 12—339 Saginaw & Manistee Lumber Co. v. A., T. & S. Fe Ry. Co 19—119 Saginaw Board of Trade v. G. T. Ry. Co 17—128 St. Cloud V. N. P. Ry. Co '. 8—346 St. Louis Blast Furnace Co. v. V. Ry. Co 21-215 St. Louis Blast Furnace v. V. Ry. Co 24—360 St. Louis Blast Furnace v. V. Ry. Co 25-183 St. Louis Hay & Grain Co. v. C, B. & Q. R. R. Co 11— 82 St. Louis Hay & Grain Co. v. L C. R. R. Co 11—486 St. Louis Hay & Grain Co. v. M. & O. R. R. Co 11— 90 St. Louis Hay & Grain Co. v. M. & O. R. R. Co 19—533 St. Louis Springfield & Peoria R. R. Co. v. P. & P. U. R. R. Co 26—226 St. Paul Board of Trade v. M., St. P. & S. S. M. Ry. Co 19-285 Salomon Bros. & Co. v. N. O. & N. E. R. R. Co 15—332 Samuels & Co. v. St. L. & S. W. Ry. Co 20—646 San 'Bernardino Board of Trade v. A.; T. & S. Fe Ry. Co 4—104 Santa Rosa Traffic Asso. v. S. P. Co 24— 46 Saunders v.' S. Exp. Co 18 — 415 Savannah Bureau of Freight & Transpn. v. C. & S. Ry. Co 7—458 Savannah Bureau of Freight & Transpn. v. C. & S. Ry. Co 7 — 601 Savannah Bureau of Freight & Transpn.. v. L. & N. R. R. Co 8—377 Savery & Co. v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. R. Co 2—338 Schmidt & Sons v. M. C. R. R. Co 19-535 Schmidt & Sons v. M. C. R. R. Co 23—684 Schultz-Hansen Co. v. S. P. Co 18—234 Scofield V. L. S. & M. S. Ry. Co 2— 90 Scudder v. T. & P. Ry. Co 21-60 Serry v. S. P. Co 18—554 Shaffer. & Co. v. C, R. I. & P. Ry. Co 21— 8 Shamber v. D., L. & W. R. R. Co 4—630 Sheridan Chamber of Commerce v. C, B. & Q. R. R. Co 26—638 Shiel & Co. V. L C. R. R. Co 12—210 Shippers Union of Phoenix v. A., T. & S. Fe Ry. Co 9—250 Signer Tie Co. v. I. & G. N. R. R. Co ." 21-615 Sinclair & Co. v. C, M. & St. P. Ry. Co 21^190 Sioux City Terminal Elevator Co. v. C, M. & St. P. Ry. Co 23— 98 Slater v. N. P. Ry. Co.. 2—359 , Slider v. S. Ry. Co 24—312 Sligo Iron Store Co. v. A., T. & S. Fe Ry. Co 17—139 Smith V. N. P. Ry. Co 1—208 Snook V. C. R. R. of N. J H~E?, Solomon Bros. & Co. v. N. O. & N. E. R. R. Co 15—332 Solvay Process Co. v. D., L. & W. R. R. Co 14—246 Sondheimer Co. v. I. C. R. R. Co ^7— .S Sondheimer Co. v. L C. R. R. Co 20—606 Southern Cotton Oil Co. v. L. & N. R. R. Co 18—180 Southern Cotton Oil Co. v. S. Ry. Co ^^~J2. Southern Grocery Co. v. G. N. Ry. Co : ^^ ,,„ Southern Furniture Manfgrs. Asso. v. S. Ry. Co 25—i79 Southern IlUinois Millers Asso. v. L. & N. R. R. Co 23—672 TABLE OF CASES CITED. Southern Pine Lumber Co. v. S. Ry. Co 14— 19S Southwest Washington Lumber Manfgrs. Asso. v. N. P. Ry. Co 14 — 23 Southwestern Kansas Farmers & Business Men's League v. A., T. & S. Fe Ry. Co 12—530 Southwestern Millers League v. A., T. & S. Fe Ry. Co 24 — SS2 Southwestern Missouri Millers Club v. M,, K. & T. Ry. Co 22 — 422 Southwestern Produce Distributers v. W. R. R. Co 20 — 458 Southwestern Shippers Traffic Asso. v. A., T. & S. Fe Ry. Co 24 — 570 Spartanburg Board of Trade v. R. & D. R. R. Co 2—304 Spiegle V. S. Ry. Co 19-522 Spiegle V. S. Ry. Co 25—71 Sprigg V. B. & O. R. R, Co 8-^43 Springer v. E., P. & S. W. R. R. Co 17—322 Springfield Commercial Asso. v. P. R. R. Co 28 — 511 Squire & Co. v. M. C. R. R. Co 4 — 611 Standard Hardwood Lumber Co. v. S. P. Co 17 — 251 Standard Lime & Stone Co. v. C. V. R. R. Co 15—620 Standard Vitrified Brick Co. v. C, B. & Q. R. R. Co 25—669 Star Grain & Lumber Co. v. A., T. & S. Fe Ry. Co 14—364 Star Grain & Lumber Co. v. A., T. & S. Fe Ry. Co 17 — 338 State of Iowa v. A. C. L. R. R. Co 24 — 134 State of Kansas v. A., T. & S. Fe Ry. Co 27—673 Sterling & Son Co. v. M. C. R. R. Co 21 — 451 Stiritz V. N. O. M. & C. R. R. Co 22—578 Stone & Carten v. D., G., H. & M. Ry. Co 3—613 Stone-Ordean Wells Co. v. S. P. Co 16—313 Stonega Coke & Coal Co. v. L. & N. R. R. Co 23— 17 Stowe-Fuller Co. v. P. Co 12 215 Suflern Grain Co. v. I. C. R. R. Co 22—178 Suffern, Hunt & Co. v.. I. D. & W. Ry. Co 7—255 Sunderland Bros. Co. v. C, B. & Q. R. R. Co 21—632 Sunderland Bros. Co. v. C. & N. W. Ry. Co 16—212 Sunderland Bros. Co. v. M. P. Ry. Co 22 141 Sunderland Bros. Co. v. St. L. & S. F. R. R. Co 18 545 Sunflower Glass Co. v. A., T. & S. Fe Ry. Co 22—391 Sunnyside Coal Mining Co. v. D. & R. G. R. R. Co 16 — 558 Superior Commercial Club v. G, N. Ry. Co 24 96 Superior Commercial Club v. G. N. Ry. Co 25 342 Sweeney, Lynes & Co. v. N. Y., P. & N. R. R. Co 20—600 Sylvester v. P. R. R. Co .' 14 573 Tap Line Case 23—277 1 ap Lme Case .' 23 549 Taylor v. M. P. Ry. Co ..'.'. 15—165 Taylor Dry Goods Co., John, v. M. P. Ry. Co 28 205 Territory of Oklahoma v. C, R. I. & P. Ry. Co 12—367 Texas Brewing Co. v. A., T. & S. Fe Ry. Co 21 171 Texas Seed & Floral Co. v. N. Y., C. & St. L. R. R. Co...'.".' 23—504 Texico Transfer Co. v. L. & N. R. R. Co. . . 2n 17 Thatcher v. D. & H. Canal Co '.'.'.'.'.'.'.'. TllS2 Thatcher v. Fitchburg R. R. Co 1 152 Thompson v. P. R. R. Co 10—640 Thompson Lumber Co. v. I. C. R. R. Co '. I3 657 Thornton & Chester Milling Co. v. D., L. & W R R Co 1? %7 Thurber v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. R. Co :...■.; 3Z473 Tift V. S. Ry. Co 10— WS Tioga Coal Co. V. C, R. L & P. Ry. Co is AU Tileston Milling Co. v. N. P. Ry. Co 8^1346 Toledo Produce Exchange v. L. S. & M. S. Ry. Co '.'. 5—166 Topeka Banana Dealers Asso. v. St. L. & S. F. R. R Co ' 1^ 670 Traer V. C. & A. R. R. Co I3II4SI Traffic Bureau of St. Louis v. C, B. & Q. R. R. Co 14 317 Traffic Bureau of St. Louis v. C, B. & Q. R. R. Co 14 sm Traffic Bureau of "St. Louis v. C, B. & Q. R. R Co 14 sSI Traffic Bureau of St. Louis v. C, B. & Q. R. R. Co'.' 22—496 TABLE OF CASES CITED. Traffic Bureau of St. Louis v. M. P. Ry. Co 13— 11 Traffic Bureau of San Francisco v. S. P. Co 19 — 2S9 Traffic Bureau of Sioux City Commercial Club v. A. & S. R. R. R. Co. 24—177 Trammell v. Clyde S. S. Co 5—324 Transportation Bureau of Seattle v. N. P. Ry. Co 19 — 265 Transportation Bureau of Wichita v. St L. & S. F. R. R. Co 23—679 Troy Board of Trade v. A. M. R. R. Co 6— 1 Truck Farmers Asso. v. N. E. R. R. Co 6—295 Truck Growers Asso. of Charleston District v. A. C. L. R. R. Co 20—190 Turnbull Co. v. E. R. R. Co 17—123 Ullman v. Adams Express Co 14 — 340 Ullman v. American Express Co 19 — 354 Union Made Garment Manfgrs. Asso. v. C. & N. W. Ry. Co 16 — 405 Union Tanning Co. v. S. Ry. Co ; 25 — 1 12 Union Tanning Co. v. S. Ry. Co 26 — 159 United States v. D. & R. G. R. R. Co 18— 7 United States Leather Co. v. S. Ry. Co 21 — 323 Utica Trafific Bureau v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. R. Co 18—271 Valley Flour Mills v. A., T. & S. Fe Ry. Co 16— 73 Vermont State Grange v. B. & L. R. R. Co 1 158 Victor Fuel Co. v. A., T. & S. Fe Ry. Co 14—119 Victor Manfg. Co. v. S. Ry. Go 21 222 Victor Manfg. Co. v. S. Ry. Co 27 661 Virginia-Carolina Chemical Co. v. A. C. L. R. R. Co 22 394 Virginia-Carolina Chemical Co. v. C, R- I. & P. Ry. Co 18 3 Virginia-Carolina Chemical Co. v. St. L. & S. F. Ry. Co 18 5 Virginia-Carolina Chemical Co. v. St. L., L M. & S. Ry. Co 18 1 Virginia-Carolina Chemical Co. v. St. L. S. W. Ry. Co 16 49 Voorhees v. A. C. L. R. R. Co 16 45 Vulcan Iron Works v. A., T. & S. Fe Ry. Co 22 477 Walker v. B. & O. R. R. Co 12—196 Warner V. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. R. Co 4—32 Warnock Co. v. C. & N. W. Ry. Co 21—546 Warren-Ehret Co. v. C. R. R. of N. J ;. 8—598 Warren Manfg. Co. v. S. Ry. Co 12 381 Washburn-Crosby Co. v. E. R. R. Co 13 38 Washburn-Crosby Co. v. L. V. R. R. Co 13 39 Washer Grain Co. v. M. P. Ry. Co 15 147 Waverly Oil Works v. P. R. R. Co .'. n 558 Waverly Oil Works v. P. R. R. Co 28 621 Waxelbaum v. A. C. L. R. R. Co .'..'. 12—178 Webster Grocery Co. v. C. & N. W. Ry. Co 19 493 Webster Grocery Co. v. C. & N. W. Ry. Co 21 20 Weil V. P. R. R. Co 11—627 Wells-Higman Co. v. St. L., I. M. & S. Ry. Co 18—175 West End Improvement Co. v. O. & C. B. Ry. & B. Co 17 239 Western Oregon Lumber Manfgrs. Asso. v. S. P. Co ... . 14 61 West Texas Fuel Co. v. T. & P. Ry. Co ' 15—443 Wharton Steel Co. v. D. & L. W. R. R. Co 25—303 Wheeler & Molter Mercantile Co. v. C, B. & Q. R. R. Co 20—141 Whitcomb v. C. & N. W. Ry. Co 15_ 27 White V. B. & O. S. W. R. R. Co 12—306 White Bros. v. A. T. & S. Fe Ry. Co 17—288 Whiteland Canning Co. v. P., C, C. & St. L. Ry. Co 22—261 Wholesale Fruit & Produce Asso. v. A., T. & S. Fe Ry. Co 14 410 Wholesale Fruit & Produce Asso. v. A., T. & S. Fe Ry. Co 17—596 Wichita V. A., T. & S. Fe Ry. Co ' 9—534 Wichita V. A., T. & S. Fe Ry. Co '. .' 9-558 Wichita Falls System Joint Caal Rates Cases 26 215 Wickwire Steel Co. v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. R. Co 27—168 Wiemer & Rich v. C. & N. W. Ry. Co 12—462 Wilburine Oil Works v. P. R. R. Co 18—548 TABLE OF CASES CITED. Wilhoit V. M., K. & T. Ry. Co 12—138 Wilhoit V. M., K. & T. Ry. Co 12—158 Williamson v. O. S. L. R. R. Co 15-223 Willman & Co. v. St. L., I. M. & S. Ry. Co 22—405 Williams Co. v. V. S. & P. Ry. Co .' 16—482 Williar v. C. N. Q. Ry. Co 17—304 Willson V. R. C. Ry. Co 7—83 Wilmington Tariff Asso. v. C, P. & V. Ry. Co 9—118 Wilson Produce Co. v. P. R. R. Co 14 — 170 Wilson Produce Co. v. P. R. R. Co 16—116 Winston-Salem Board of Trade v. N. & W. Ry. Co 16— 12 Winters Metallic Paint Co. v. C, M. & St. P. Ry. Co 16—587 Wisconsin Pulp Wood Co. v. G. N. Ry. Co 22 — 594 Wisconsin Steel Co. v. P. & L. E. R. R. Co 27-152 Woodward & Dickerson -v. L. & N. R. R. Co 15 — 170 Woodward & Dickerson v. L. & N. R. R. Co 17 — 9 Worcester Excursion Car Co. v. P. R. R. Co 3 — 577 Wylie V. N. P. Ry. Co 11—145 Wyman, Partridge & Co. v. B. & M. R. R. Co 13—258 Wyman, Partridge & Co. v. B. & M. R. R. Co 15-577 Wyman, Partridge & Co. v. B. & M. R. R. Co '. 19— ,551 Youngblood v. T. & P. Ry. Co 21—569 Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. P. & L. E. R. R. Co 27-165 CITATION AND DIGEST OF DECISIONS of the INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION of the UNITED STATES Vols. 1 to 29. VOLUME 1. 1887—1888. Page 8 In re PETITION OF THE ORDER OF RAILWAY CONDUCTORS. (1 I. C. REP. 18.) Commission cannot construe Act before violation thereof charged. Opinions will not be expressed on abstract questions. Duty of carriers in re interpretation of effect of Act. Cited: ICC IC 1-307 2-604 3-224 3-721 5-79 IS In re INDIAN SUPPLIES. (1 I. C. REP. 22.) Transportation "for the United States" defined. Special rates for government contractors. Cited: ICC IC 1-606 1-23 1-6S6 3-224 2-604 17 In re IOWA BARB STEEL WIRE COMPANY. (1 I. C. REP. 605.) Commission's authority in re special privileges. Failure of complaint to state a case within Commission's jurisdiction. Necessity of decision in re ex parte application. Cited f ICC IC 3-224 2-604 4-626 3-522 20 In re ST. LOUIS MILLERS' ASSOCIATION. (1 I. C. REP. 22.) Commission's authority in re special privileges. Cited: ICC ^IC 3-224 2-604 24 In re EXPORT TRADE OF BOSTON. (1 I. C. REP. 25.) Discrimination in export rates. Equalization of rates by payment of rebate illegal. Relation of export rates as between localities. Procedure — where complaint shows legality of practice. Cited: ICC ^ IC 6-20 4-356 8-112 8-252 11-65 Vol. 1 I. C. C. CITATIONS. Page 28 In re DISABLED SOLDIERS AND SAILORS. (1 I. C. REP. 75.) Duty of carrier to construe Act in first instance. Commission cannot construe Act before violation thereof charged. Cited: ICC IC 3-224 2-604 30 MO. & ILL. TIE & LUMBER CO. v. C. G. & S. W. RY. CO. (1 I. C. REP. 607-B.) Transportation not made* interstate by intention of shipper. Intrastate shipment — ultimate delivery outside of state. Cited: ICC IC 3-599 2-808 31 In re LOUISVILLE & NASHVILLE R. R. CO. (1 I. C. REP. 278.) Circumstances and conditions under 4th Section of Act. Determined by whom. Comparison of local and through traffic. When application for suspension not required. Burden of proof to establish right under 4tli Section. Equitable distribution of burdens of transportation. Acceptance by railroads of rates established by water carriers. 86 102 Cited: ICC IC 1-102 5-371 1-562 4-140 SO Fed. 300- 1-173 5-381 1-576 4-144 56 Fed. 942. 1-182 5-383 1-579 4-342 71 Fed. 839. 1-202 5-384 1-624 4-354 88 Fed. 195. 1-628 5-389 1-635 ■ 4-355 168 U. S. 163. 2-23 5-397 2-4 4-360 168 U. S. 168. 2-255 6-15 2-8 175 U. S. 667. 2-263 6-17 2-12 234 U- S. 483. 2-268 6-29 2-145 3-2S 6-355 2-148 3-63 6-373 2-463 4-18 7-62 2-476 4-21 7-63 3-87 4-27 7-64 3-89 4-243 7-236 3-91 4-261 8-521 3-269 5-240 10-250 3-276 S-249 13-176 3-860 5-250 21-65 3-863 5-251 21-405 3-864 5-328 4-121 • CHICAGO & ALTON R. R. CO. v. PENNSYLVANIA R. R. CO. (1 I. C. REP. 357.) Through passenger tickets. Sale of through tickets — a matter of agreement between carriers. Carrier's exclusive control of its internal affairs. Payment of commissions for sale of tickets. Cited: ICC IC 3-5 2-389 41 Fed. 563. 3-18 2-456 51 Fed. 475. 2-460 2-765 4-255 HOLBROOK V. ST. P. M. & M. R. R. CO. (1 I. C. REP. 323.) Carriers duty in re furnishing cars. Provisions of Act are not retroactive. Authority of Commission to anticipate violations of Act. Cited: ICC IC 4-520 3-446 I. C. C. CITATIONS. Vol. 1 Page 104 FULTON V. ST. P. M. & O. RY. CO. (1 I. C. REP. 37S-A.) Burden of proof on complainant to sustain charges. Reduction of rates by carrier before hearing. Cited: 109 Fed. 836. 120 Fed. 935. 107 PROVIDENCE COAL CO. v. P. & W. R. R. CO. (1 I. C. REP. 363.) Allowances to shipper for hauling freight. Allowances based on tonnage shipped, unjust discrimination. Custom and usage of practice as establishing legality thereof. Discrimination in terminal charges. Differential rates between two stations in same city. Cited: ICC IC 3-508 1-725 220 U. S. 240 5-378 2-754 11-403 29-665 132 BURTON STOCK CAR CO. v. C. B. & Q. R. R. CO. (1 I. C. REP. 329.) Payment of mileage to private car company. Private car company not "connecting carrier". Reasonableness of rate as affected by use of private cars. Cited: ICC IC 1-208 1-617 3-582 2-623 3-586 2-794 2-795 144 OTTINGER v. SOUTHERN PACIFIC CO. (1 I. C. REP. 607-A.) Act affords no remedy for pre-existing conditions. Interest of parties in transaction necessary to sustain petition. Cited: ICC IC 6-167 4-534 74 Fed. 839. 147 LARRISON v. G. & G. T. RY. CO. (1 I. C. REP. 369.) Mileage, excursion and commutation tickets. Publication of rates for mileage tickets required. Special rates for commercial travelers unlawful. Release of liability as consideration for reduced rates. Cited: ICC IC 1-158 1-616 3-472 2-731 5-79 3-721 6-117 4-399 17-214 21-432 1.52 THATCHER v. DELAWARE & HUDSON CANAL CO. (1 I. C. REP. 356.) Comparison of local rate with division of through rate. Limitation of Commission's authority in re rates. Cited: ICC 16-554 167 U. S. 479. 167 U. S. 510. Vol. 1 I. C. C. CITATIONS. Page 156 ASSOCIATED GROCERS OF ST. LOUIS v. M. P. RY. CO. (1 I. C. REP. 321-393.) Discrimination in sale of mileage tickets. Special rates for commercial travelers unlawful Practice and proceedings shall be as simple as possible. Dilatory pleadings not allowed. Cited: ICC 1-224 21-433 158 BOSTON & ALBANY R. R. CO. v. B. & L. R. R. CO. (1 I. C. REP. 500-571.) Liability of participating carriers in through rate under 4th Section. Meaning of word "line" as used in 4th Section. Carrier's responsibility for Fast Freight Line rates. Circumstances and conditions under 4th Section. One may complain to Commission on public grounds. Proceedings not sustained by desire to have Act construed. Commission cannot compel carriers to raise competitive rates. Effect of Commission's decisions on 4th Section rulings. Publication of Fast Freight Line rates. Cited: ICC IC 1-206 2-41 1-289 2-75 2-51 2-166 3-34 2-467 3-38 2-468 6-476 199 ALLEN v. L. N. A. & C. R. R. CO. (1 I. C. REP. 621.) Combination of locals vs. through rate under 4th Section. All roads responsible for alleged violation must be made parties. Extent of carrier's responsibility for rates on connecting road. Cited: ICC IC 2-124 1-662 2-385 2-82 2-594 2-293 2-601 2-428 10-34 2-430 208 SMITH V. NORTHERN PACIFIC RY. CO. (1 1. C. REP. 611.) Reduced land explorers and immigrants tickets illegal. Carrier's duty to make equal charges for equal service. Allowance of price of ticket applied to payment of land. Extent of power of Commission to proceed on its own motion Cited: ICC IC 2-88 2-54 2-358 2-217 2-359 2-218 2-361 2-244 3-122 2-512 3-471 2-731 5-80 3-721 215 BOARD OF TRADE UNION OF v. C. M & ST P RY CO (1 L C. REP. 608.) ' Relative reasonableness of rates between communities. Relative rates on parallel lines of same carrier Cited: ICC IC 1-452 1-760 2-266 2-149 4-83 3-117 6-477 6-557 I. C. C. CITATIONS. Vol. 1 Page 227 MANFRS. & JOBBERS UNION OF MANKATO v. M. & ST. L. R. R. (1 I. C. REP. 630.) Reduction of rates after complaint filed. Procedure of Commission thereafter. Cited: ICC IC 4-80 3-llS 4-520 3-446 5-630 4-282 230 RAYMOND v. C. M. & ST. P. RY. CO. (1 I. C. REP. 627-B.) Comparison of rates as establishing unreasonableness thereof. . Undue preference through adjustment of reasonable rates. Discrimination-competition between carriers affecting localities. Reasonableness of advantage given competing town. Application of 4th Section to intermediate points within longer haul. Cited: ICC IC 2-266 6-477 2-149 4-83 6-557 3-117 236 HARWELL v. COLUMBUS & WESTERN R. R. CO. (1 I. C. REP. 631.) Competition by water under 4th Section. Measure of proof required under 4th Section. Bills of lading as a facility of transportation. Basing-point system as applied in Southern States. Cited: ICC ' IC 1-628 S-400 2-12 3-276 2-594 6- IS 2-428 4-lSl 2-601 6-21 2-430 4-354 3-444 6-29 2-718 4-357 4-243 7-235 3-269 4-360 4-261 28-184 325 EVANS v. OREGON RAILWAY & NAVIGATION CO. (1 I. C. REP. 641.) Factors in determining reasonableness of rates. Carriers not required to make rates on mere conjectures. Cited: ICC IC 1-567 5-11 1-747 2-785 2-69 S-111 2-47 3-658 2-83 6-127 2-48 3-746 2-286 6-522 2-52 3-557 12-249 2-172 . 339 COUNCILL v. WESTERN & ATLANTIC R. R. CO. (1 I. C. REP. 638.) Extent of Comrriission's authority in re claim for damages. Commission no authority to award attorney's fees. Discrimination between white and colored passengers. Cited: ICC IC 1-431 12-249 1-720 137 Fed. 349. 2-138 17-362 2-80 5-93 3-715 349 In re EXPRESS COMPANIES. (1 I. C. REP. 677.) What express companies are within purview of Act. Extent of jurisdiction of Commission under Act. Cited: ICC IC 5-460 3-112 4-180 Vol. 1 I. C. C. CITATIONS. Page 372 RIDDLE, DEAN & CO. v. P. & L. E. R. R. CO. (1 I .C. REP. 701-778.) Amendments to complaint-procedure to apply. Cited: ICC IC 2-314 2-188 3-230 374 RIDDLE, DEAN & CO. v. P. & L. E. R. R. CO. (1 I. C. REP. 688.) Distribution of cars during shortage thereof. Carrier's liability for failure to furnish adequate supply. Refusal of carrier to allow cars to be sent off its line. Cited: ICC IC 1-601 1-790 4-316 3-310 10-245 22-43 393 REYNOLDS v. W. N. Y. & P. R. R. CO. (1 L C. REP. 685.) Discrimination in classification of railroad ties. Discriminatory rates restricting movement of railroad material. Rule in reference to amendments to complaints. Cited: ICC IC 2-129 2-84 162 Fed. 190. 4-316 3-310 175 Fed. 33. 9-85 234 U. S. 149. 401 CREWS V. RICHMOND & DANVILLE R. R. CO. (1 I. C. REP. 703.) Equalization of rates between small and large towns. Relative equal charges for equal service. Comparison of rates between long-haul and short-haul traffic. Responsibility of carrier for rates of connecting line. Discrimination defined. Equalization of rates to and from jobbing centers. Refusal of carrier to interchange freight. Cited: ICC IC 1-632 2-289 2-11 2-316 60 Fed. 548. 2-25 3-70 2-37 2-479 2-39 10-213 2-173 4-831 428 HEARD v. GEORGIA R. R. CO (1 I. C. REP. 719.) Separation of white and co-lored passengers. Remedy for unlawful separation in courts, not Commission. Cited: ICC IC 3-118 2-511 12-249 436 BOSTON CHAMBER OF COMMERCE v. L. S. & M. S. RY. CO. (1 I. C. REP. 754.) Differential rates between competitive cities. Standard for determining reasonableness of rates. Necessity of rates equalizing existing inequalities. Divisions of joint rate between carriers. Cited: ICC IC 2-585 5-188 2-415 3-839 3-183 5-455 2-568 4-179 5-11 8-113 3-658 5-177 13-31 3-834 5-184 13-33 18-157 3-838 I. C. C. CITATIONS. Vol. 1 Page 465 PYLE & SONS v. E. T. V. & G. RY. CO. (1 I. C. REP. 767.) Elements of classification of freight. Cited: ICC IC 3-447 2-719 6-67 4-376 25-459 25-472 480 FARRAR & CO. v. E. T. V. & G. RY. CO. (1 I. C. REP. 764.) Rates should be reasonably remunerative to carrier. Comparison between joint rates and local rates. Rate per ton per mile decreases as distance increases. Cited: ICC IC 2-68 5-111 2-47 2-746 2-83 11-643 2-52 2-786 3-558 490 RIDDLE, DEAN & CO. v. P. & L. E. R. R. CO. (1 I. C. REP. 773.) Conditions under which rehearing will be allowed. All interested carriers must be made party to proceedings. Commission does not report cumulative evidence. Cited: ICC IC 1-601 1-790 2-594 2-430 6-56 4-371 495 HECK & PETREE v. E. T. V. & G. RY. CO. (1 I. C. REP. 775.) State common carrier as facility of interstate commerce. Claim for pecuniary damages will not be considered by Commission. Cited: ICC IC 2-138 2-80 137 Fed. 349. 3-599 2-808 207 Fed. 720. 4-316 3-310 5-93 3-715 17-362 503 RICE v. W. N. Y. & P. R. R. CO. (1 I. C. REP. 722.) Duty of carriers to supply equipment. Allowance made to owners of tank cars for their use. Uniformity and publication of allowances to owners of tank cars. Discrimination based on mode of shipment. Factors in determining reasonableness of rates. Necessity of sustaining pleadings by evidejice. Cited: 109 Fed. 837. ICC IC 2-115 4-152 2-75 3-171 2-370 4-153 2-246 3-843 3-582 5-198 2-794 4-168 3-587 S-429 2-795 4-170 4-134 5-433 3-163 4^143 S-434 3-167 4-145 3-168 4-146 3-170 Vol. 2 I. C. C. CITATIONS. Page 594 RIDDLE, DEAN & CO. v. N. Y. L. E. & W. R. R. CO. (1 I. C. REP. 787.) Discrimination in distribution of caris. Duty of carrier to provide adequate equipment. Obligation of carrier to transport freight tendered. Discrimination as to customers or character of trafific. Claim for pecuniary damages not considered by Commission. Cited: ICC IC 4-316 3-230 109 Fed. 836. 5-93 3-310 137 Fed. 349. 5-94 3-715 17-362 3-716 25-294 626 In re TARIFFS OF COLUMBUS & WESTERN RY. CO. (2 L C. REP. 11.) Tarififs not conforming to 4th Section criticized. Duty of carriers in re publication of tariffs. Cited: ICC IC 1-632 2-47 3-639 3-70 629 LA CROSSE MANFRS. & JOB. UNION v. C. M. & ST. P. RY. CO. (2 I. C. REP. 9.) Distance as factor in reasonableness of rates. Through rates should be lower than sum of locals. Group rates not unlawful per se. Complaint must furnish reasonable grounds for investigation. Cited: ICC IC 2-53 2-289 2-4] 2-173 2-67 2-294 2-46 2-175 2-69 2-587 2-47 2-415 2-78 3-557 2-50 2-785 2-83 3-639 2-52 3-70 VOLUME 2. 1888—1889, 1 MARTIN V. SOUTHERN PACIFIC CO. (2 L C. REP. 1.) Adoption of uniform classification urged. Classiiications should be clear and simple. Violation of 4th Section through classification. Intermediate rates exceeding rates to terminus and return. Cited: ICC IC 2-324 2-203 4-526 3-449 8-624 25 MARTIN v. C. B. & Q. R. R. CO. (2 L C. REP. 32.) Equality of rates between large and small towns. Reasonableness of rates as determined by effect on localities. Equalization of through rate with sum of locals to and from jobbing centers. What constitutes local and what through rates. Cited: ICC IC 2-154 6-355 2-98 3-63 2-289 6-373 2-173 3-68 3-70 6-476 2-316 4-360 3-621 7-235 2-479 3-633 8-521 6-29 23-148 I. C. C. CITATIONS. Vol. 2 Page 52 BUSINESS MEN'S ASS'N OF MINN. v. C. ST. P. M. & O. RY. CO. (2 I. C. REP. 41.) Distance as a factor in rates. Rate per ton per mile as factor in reasonableness of rates. Circumstances and conditions as factor in reasonableness of rates. Effect of water competition on rates. Cited: ICC IC 2-78 4-151 2-50 3-244 2-83 4-181 2-52 3-253 2-84 4-208 2-97 3-276 2-151 4-261 2-175 4-151 2-294 5-399 2-415 4-831 2-587 8-288 2-785 3-557 13-361 2-786 3^559 20-242 3-118 4-86 3-170 60 Fed. 549. 73 BUSINESS MEN'S ASSO. OF MINN. v. C. & N. W. RY. CO. (2 I. C. REP. 48.) Rate per ton per mile as factor in reasonableness of rates. Elements determining reasonableness of rates. Reasonableness of rates dependent on character of traffic. Competition as element creating dissimilar conditions. Future proceedings where Act violated but proof fails to sustain charge. Cited: ICC IC 3-557 2-97 3-560 2-175 9-33 j 90 SCOFIELD & L. S. & M. S. RY. CO. (2 I. C. REP. 67.) Duty of carrier to furnish proper car equipment. Commission without jurisdiction to order furnishing of cars. Carriers may lease equipment of private companies. Discrimination in rates based on ownership of cars, illegal. Payment of allowances for use of private cars. Discrimination in mode of shipment. Cited: ICC IC 2-312 4-661 2-188 3-542 2-373 5-12 2-248 3-658 3-582 5-199 2-622 3-844 3-587 5-212 2-794 3-849 4-145 5-429 2-795 4-168 4-146 5-431 3-168 4-169 4-153 5-433 3-171 4-154 6-316 14-431 3-514 : v. L. S. & M. S. RY. CO. 122 HURLBURT v. (2 I. C. REP. 81.) All interested carriers should be made party to proceedings. Interested persons may be heard although not formal parties. Impartial application of classifications to all persons. Classifications — how construed. Cited: ICC IC 2-130 2-84 4-316 3-310 6-555 9-85 16-346 Vol. 2 I. C. C. CITATIONS. Page 131 BRADY V. PENNSYLVANIA R. R. CO. (2 I. C. REP. 78.) Through and continuous lines imply through rates. Responsibility of carriers parties to joint through rate. Comparison as basis for determining reasonableness of rates. Transportation risk as element in rate-making. Cited: ICC IC 5-3 8-287 3-699 S-39 8-604 3-60S S-111 12-166 3-746 5-370 22-68 4-139 5-629 4-281 6-22 4-357 142 NEW JERSEY FRUIT EXCHANGE v. C. R. R. OF N. J. (2 I. C. REP. 84.) Distinction between intrastate and interstate commerce. Transportation not made interstate by intention of shipper. Increase of tonnage as affecting reasonableness of rates. Cited: ICC IC 3-599 2-808 147 LINCOLN BOARD OF TRADE v. B. & M. R. R. CO. (2 I. C. REP. 95.) Preference in rates between localities. Preference in rates as affected by subscriptions given to build road. Conditions determining reasonableness of rates. Probable water competition affecting reasonableness of rates. Competition at intermediate point as affecting rates. When comparison furnishes fair basis for determining reasonableness. Cited: ICC IC 2-157 2-100 4-15 3-92 4-520 3-446 9-226 155 LINCOLN BOARD OF TRADE v. M. P. RY. CO. (2 I. C. REP. 98.) Preference in rates between localities. Short-line distance affecting rates via competing line. Elements considered in determining reasonableness of rates. Cited: ICC 6-481 13-320 162 KENTUCKY & INDIANA BRIDGE CO. v. L. & N. R. R. CO. (2 I. C. REP. 102.) Bridge Company entitled to equal facilities of interchange of traffic. Public necessity in re common carriers. Railroads created by competent authority are public conveniences. Reversed: 37 Fed. 567; 149 U. S. Ill; 37 L. Ed. 964; 13 S. C. 1048. Cited: ICC IC 3-1 2-452 3-17 2-460 4-716 3-548 I. C. C. CITATIONS. Vol. 2 Page 231 In re CHICAGO, ST. PAUL & KANSAS CITY R. R. CO. (2 1. C. REP. 137.) What constitutes relative reasonableness of rates. Relation of rate wars to reasonableness of rates. Destructive or illegitimate competition. Extent and purpose of Act in re preference and discrimination. Commission's power to order rates increased. Cited: ICC IC 4-343 S6 Fed. 944. 167 U. S. 479. 167 U. S. 507. 2-524 5-608 2-345 3-259 6-678 2-606 3-632 7-63 3-67 4-83 7-475 3-117 4-84 8-358 3-255 4-211 9-599 4-151 5-400 14-307 4-272 272 HOWELL v. N. Y. L. E. & W. R. R. CO. (2 I. C. REP. 162.) Necessary elements in considering reasonableness of rates. Comparison of rates as determining reasonableness thereof. Grouping of rates. Elements of extra expense in transportation of milk. When preference and advantage become undue and unreasonable. Cited: ICC IC 2-632 7-156 2-441 7-102 7-164 7-103 7-165 7-111 7-537 301 GRIFFEE v. B. & M. R. R. R. CO. (2 I. C. REP. 194.) What- constitutes giving of free transportation. Cited: ICC IC 5-80 3-721 304 SPARTANBURG BOARD OF TRADE v. R. & D. R. R. CO. (2 I. C. REP. 193.) Burden of proof in proceedings under 4th Section. Tariffs alone insufficient to prove violation of Act. Cited: ICC IC 6-15 4-354 315 DETROIT BOARD OF TRADE v. G. T. RY. CO." (2 L C. REP. 199.) Considerations determining reasonableness of through and local rates. Distance as a factor in rates. Disturbing existing rate systems by changing rate at one point. Cited: ICC IC 2-395 3-568 2-301 3-248 2-586 4-195 2-399 3-253 2-588 4-207 2-413 2-590 17-132 2-415 2-593 17-137 . 2-608 3-263 23-198 2-789 324 In re TARIFFS OF TRANSCONTINENTAL LINES. (2 I. C. REP. 203.) Reasonableness of rates from all points in same territory. Undue preference between localities. Carrier's obligation to take all traffic offered. Rates must be equal and open at all times. Discriminations given by special tariffs. Cited: ICC 21-417 Vol. 2 I. C. C. CITATIONS. Page 338 SAVERY & CO. v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. R. CO. (2 I. C. REP. 210.) Immigration rates and regulations. Different accommodations justify different passenger rates. Commission's jurisdiction over character of equipment. Cited: ICC IC 3-655 2-805 359 SLATER v. NORTHERN PACIFIC RY. CO. (2 I. C. REP. 243.) Free transportation, under circumstances stated, illegal. When carrier should not be prosecuted for alleged violation of Act. Improper motive in filing complaint Cited: ICC IC 5-80 3-721 6-169 4-534 365 In re RELATIVE TANK AND BARREL RATES ON OIL. (2 I. C. REP. 245.) Governing effect of Commission's ruling under dissimilar conditions. Difference in rating based on transportation risk. Cited: ICC IC 4-154 3-171 5-200 3-844 5-429 4-168 375 NEW ORLEANS COTTON EXCHANGE v. C. N. O. & T. P. RY. CO. (2 I. C. REP. 289.) Commercial conditions not affecting reasonableness of rates. Reasonableness of rates not affected by manner of construction. Competition with short-line rate lawful. Necessary parties to proceeding. Commerce between points in same State — ^when interstate commerce. Operating expense of road in re reasonableness of rates. Cited: ICC IC 2-586 4-563 2-415 2-790 3-553 5-111 2-521 3-253 3-565 7-160 2-530 3-472 3-572 9-243 2-784 3-746 4-208 26-623 2-788 389 RICE, ROBINSON & WITHEROP v. W. N. Y. & P. R. R. CO. (2 I. C. REP. 298.) Rates — Dissimilar conditions as factor in making of. Carrier not required to equalize competitive conditions. Rates — Reduction at one point resulting in disturbance at other points. Division of through rate lower than corresponding local rate. Duty of carrier to furnish car capable of carrying minimum weight. Cited: ICC IC 4-133 3-163. 5-427 4-167 540 REND V. C. & N. W. RY. CO. (2 I. C. REP. 313.) Grouping of rates from coal mines. Comparison of division of through rate with corresponding local. Reduction of one rate as affecting adjustment of others. Preference and advantage in re adjustment of through rates. Cited: ICC IC 5-190 3-840 I. C. C. CITATIONS. Vol. 2 Page 553 MILWAUKEE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE v. F. & P. M. R. R. CO. (2 I. C. REP. 393.) Percentage of through rate as compared with local. Combination of locals as constituting through rate. Through rates, as such, discussed and defined. Reasonableness of proportions of through rates. Milling-in-transit rates as part of through rate. Cited: ICC IC 3-559 7-333 2-599 4-677 12-168 2-786 5-25 13-271 3-693 573 MYERS v. PENNSYLVANIA CO. (2 I. C. REP. 403.) Former rates as test of reasonableness of present rates. Classification is based on comparison of similar articles. Cited: ICC IC 3-130 2-544 4-40 3-77 584 LIPPMAN & CO. v. I. C. R. R. CO. (2 I. C. REP. 414.) Division of through rate less than corresponding local. Obligation of carrier in re reasonable rates on local traffic. Cited: ICC IC 3-462 2-725 8-259 604 LOGAN v. C. & N. W. RY. CO. (2 I. C. REP. 431.) Difference in rates as between branch lines. When carrier must justify departure from equal mileage rates. Long established rate as evidence of reasonableness thereof. Longer-distance rates in excess of rates to intermediate points. Reasonableness of rates not necessarily determined by comparison. Discrimination in re-billing arrangements. Cited: ICC IC 5-612 4-280 5-628 4-611 6-236 6-586 618 IMPERIAL COAL CO. v. P. & L. E. R. R. CO. (2 I. C. REP. 436.) Grouping of coal rates. No undue prejudice in absence of actual damage. Factors in determining question of undue prejudice. Division of through rate as furnishingcomparison for local. Cited: ICC IC 3-639 17-173 3-70 57 Fed. 1010. 7-164 18-78 7-474 22-646 .6-582 645 In re JOINT WATER AND RAIL LINES. (2 I. C. REP. 486.) Jurisdiction to compel through rates via rail and water lines. Discrimination in establishing rail and water rates. Cited: ICC IC 3-562 2-787 190 Fed. 959. Vol. 3 I. C. C. CITATIONS. Page 649 In re PASSENGER TARIFFS. (2 I. C. REP. 445.) Methods adopted by carriers in making tariffs. Sum of locals to apply in absence of joint passenger rate. Posting of passenger tariffs required. Sale and publication of mileage, excursion and commutation tickets. Party rates and passenger carload rates, illegal. Cited: ICC IC 3-4Z0 2-731 6-117 4-399 17-215 21-433 VOLUME 3. 1889—1890. LITTLE ROCK & MEMPHIS R. R. CO. v. E. T. V. & G. R. R. CO. (2 I. C. REP. 454.) English legislation — application of principles thereof. Power to compel carriers to make through rates and routes. Discrimination in matter of through tickets. Sustained: 41 Fed. 559; 47 Fed. 771. Reversed: 149 U. S. 779; 37 L. Ed. 963; 13 S. C. 1049; 159 U. S. 698; 40 L. Ed. 311; 16 S. C. 189. Cited: ICC IC 3-611 4-271 5-4 2-76S 3-612 4-716 5-58 2-812 4-17 4-726 7-334 3-87 4-262 4-727 7-348 3-277 4-265 4-728 7-350 3-280 19 In re TARIFFS OF ATLANTA & WEST POINT R. R. CO. (2 I. C. REP. 461.) Method of making rates. Preferential rates in favor of trade centers. Application of principles of long-and-short-haul clause. Form of tariffs and classification criticized. Cited: ICC IC 3-548 4-264 59 Fed. 400. 3-552 4-720 63 Fed. 775. 3-553 188 Fed. 113. 3-605 4-180 / 4-691 6-270 3-484 5-98 6-356 3-748 5-116 6-374 3-864 5-250 7-235 4-139 5-369 8-521 4-700 87 RICE, ROBINSON & WITHEROP v. W. N. Y. & P. R. R. CO. (2 I. C. REP. 496-A.) Procedure — What petition for rehearing should contain. Circumstances under which Commission will reopen a case. Cited: ICC 6-4SS 128 BISHOP V. DUVAL. (2 I. C. REP. 514.) Commission will not express opinion on abstract questions. Cited: ICC IC 3-224 2-604 I. C. C. CITATIONS. Vol. 3 Page 130 MYERS V. PENNSYLVANIA CO. (2 I. C. REP. 544.) Procedure — What petition for rehearing should show. Circumstances under which Commission will reopen case. Cited: ICC IC CO 2-573 cc 2-403 4-40 3-77 137 NEW YORK PRODUCE EXCHANGE v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. R. CO. (2 I. C. REP. 553.) Export rates — inland and ocean. Export rates — manner in which they should be made. Unjust discrimination in inland proportion of export rates. Sustained: 52 Fed. 187; 57 Fed, 948. Reversed: 162 U. S. 197; 40 L. Ed. 940; 16 S. C. 666. Cited: ICC IC 4-447 8-253 3-417 6-18 10-63 4-355 "8-114 186 RICE V. C. W. & B. R. R. CO. (2 I. C. REP. 584.) ; "' Procedure in re production of books and papers. Duty of carrier to give information shown by their records. Cited: ICC 8-259 221 LINCOLN BOARD OF TRADE v. U. P. RY. CO. (2 L C. REP. 101.) No opinion where grounds of complaint are satisfied. Cited: ICC IC 4-520 3-446 223 PENNSYLVANIA CO. v. L. N. A. & C. RY. CO. (2 I. C. REP. 603.) Commission does not give opinions on abstract questions. Satisfaction of complaint before hearing. Cited: ICC IC 4-520 3-446 224 AMERICAN WIRE NAIL CO. v. Q. & C. F. F. LINE. (2 I. C. REP. 604.) Satisfaction of complaint before hearing. Cited: ICC IC 4-520 3-466 225 JAMES & ABBOTT v. E. T. V. & G. RY. CO. (2 I. C. REP. 609.) Rates — Greater charge for shorter distance. Water competition as justifying lower rate to longer-distance point. Difference in character of commodities not justifying discrimination. Distance as element in determining reasonableness of rates. Reasonableness of rates determined by comparison. Cited: ICC IC 4-189 3-245 5-111 3-746 7-253 19-416 i J Vol. 3 I. C. C. CITATIONS. Page 252 McMORRAN v. GRAND TRUNK R. R. CO. (2 I. C. REP. 604.) Relation of local to through rates should not be unduly disproportional. When difference in rates on grain and grain products is unreasonable. When burden of, proof on carrier to justify disparity between rates. Terminal expenses as aflfecting reasonableness of rates. Cited: ICC IC 4-527 6-236 3-449 5-111 6-674 4-357 6-23 8-269 4-611 266 RAWSON v. N. N. & M. V. RY. CO. (2 I. C. REP. 626.) Procedure — Where practice complained of has been abandoned. Cited: ICC IC 4-520 3-446 137 Fed. 349. 5-94 3-716 19-384 435 BATES & BATES v. PENNSYLVANIA R. R. CO. (2 I. C. REP. 715.) Water competition affecting rates from remote points. Conditions under which change in classification unjustifiable. Discrimination between rate on corn and its products. Cited: " " ICC IC 4-281 8-269 cc 3-296 5-518 8-271 4-225 5-519 12-262 4-226 5-521 14-71 4-379 6-73 450 C, R. I. & P. R. R. Co. v. C. & A. R. R. CO. (2 I. C. REP. 721.) Failure of carriers to establish joint through rates. Considerations determining reasonableness of through and local rates. Through rates may be less than sum of locals. Unjust discrimination in re stoppage in transit privileges. Cited: ICC 7-247 7-335 465 PITTS., CIN. & ST. LOUIS RY. CO. v. B. & O. R. R. CO. (2 I. C. REP. 729.) Passenger excursion rates are required to be published. Party-rate tickets illegal Reversed: 43 Fed. 37; 145 U. S. 263; 36 L. Ed. 699; 12 S. C. 844. Cited: ICC 12-96 21-434 473 THURBER v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. R. CO. (2 I. C. REP. 742.) Classification of freight is lawful. Differential between carload and less-than-carload rates, lawful. Elements entering into the making of classifications. Cited: ICC IC S-78 5-655 3-721 4-293 220 U. S. 240. S-638 6-109 4-28S 4-395 5-646 9-356 4-289 ! S-652 25-472 4-291 I. C. C. CITATIONS. Vol. 3 Page 534 NEW ORLEANS COTTON EXCHANGE v. I. C. R. R. CO. (2 I. C. REP. 777.) Factors in determining reasonableness of rates. Division of through rate lower than corresponding local. Competition between carriers as affecting rates. Application of per ton mile rule. When water competition is a factor in rate making. Reasonableness of allowance for compressing cotton. Commission's authority to compel furnishing of certain equipment. Water carriers not required to file tariffs with Commission. Cited: ICC IC 4-21 S-111 3-88 3-746 4-19S 8-2S9 3-248 4-207 16-582 3-2S3 4-243 3-269 4-261 3-276 577 WORCESTER EXCURSION CAR CO. v. P. R. R. CO. (2 I. C. REP. 792.) Circumstances under which carriers may refuse to haul private cars. Public character of railroads. Manner of acquiring equipment is optional with carrier. Liability of carriers for safe conduct of passengers. Discrimination in charges for handling private equipment. Cited: ICC IC 3-272 4-2SS 51 Fed. 477. 17-104 200 Fed. 792. 592 MATTINGLY v. PENNSYLVANIA COMPANY. (2 I. C. REP. 806.) Transfer of freight cars by connecting carriers. Construction of Act in re transportation facilities. State common carrier engaged in interstate commerce — Duties of. Cited: ICC IC 4-17 5-25 3-87 3-693 74 Fed. 526. 4-677 5-369 3-498 4-139 4-717 5-604 3-548 4-271 4-726 6-48 3-552 4-368 613 STONE & CARTEN v. D. G. H. & M. RY. CO. (3 I. C. REP. 60.) Free cartage as undue preference. Long-continued practice creates no presumption of legality. Discrimination in terminal facilities between localities. Sustained: 57 Fed. 1005. Reversed: 74 Fed. 803; 167 U. S. 633; 42 L. Ed. 306; 17 S. C. 986. Cited: ICC IC 5-63 3-704 85 Fed. 118. 137 Fed. 355. 167 U. S. 638. 649 In re CLARK. (2 L C. REP. 797.) Advancing freight charges earned- by preceding carrier. Through rates are matter of agreement between carriers. Cited: ICC 7-335 658 PANKEY v. R. & D. R. R. CO. (3 I. C. REP. 333.) Duty of carrier in re shipper's choice of route. Duty of carrier to forward via cheapest route when shipment unrouted. Cited: ICC 7-53 153 Fed. 629. 12-418 12-424 17-294 Vol. 4 I. C. C. CITATIONS. Page VOLUME 4. 1890—1891. LEHMANN, HIGGINSON & CO. v. SOUTHERN PACIFIC CO. (3 I. C. REP. 80.) Conditions justifying lower charge for longer distance. Distinction between legitimate and destructive competition. Limitations on power of carrier to determine charges. Pacific Coast Terminal rates as compared with intermediate rates. Cited: ICC IC 4-717 8-626 3-548 .4-726 9-239 3-552 5-241 9-240 3-860 5-243 13-65 3-861 5-246 13-66 3-862 7-235 32 WARNER v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. R. CO. (3 I. C. REP. 74.) Elements of classification — Volume of traflfic. Difference in value justifies difference in classification. Market value as distinguished from intrinsic value. Cited: ICC 9-83 25-472 41 ANDREWS SOAT CO. v. P. C. C. & ST. L. RY. CO. (3 I. C. REP. 77.) Manufacturer's description of article describes it for transportation. Cited: ICC IC 4-742 3-568 19-510 48 In re FOOD PRODUCTS. . (3 I. C. REP. 93.) Reasonableness of rates — Relation of cost and value of service. Relation of freight charges to cost of production of article. Presumption of profitability in long-established rates. Cost of transportation as element of rate-making. . Cited: ICC IC 3-151 3-700 3-746 4-116 8-180 5-40 8-181 5-111 9-306 8-178 8-179 79 MANFRS. & JOB. UNION OF MANKATO (3 I. C. REP. 115.) Relative rates between localities. Must be relatively reasonable as well as reasonable per se. Under similar conditions equality of rates must prevail. Obligation to give impartial service to all patrons. Application of per ton mile rule. Cited: M. & ST. L. R. R. CO. ICC IC cc 1-227 9-31 cc 1-630 4-520 9-241 3-446 5-630 9-247 4-282 6-236 11-549 4-611 6-238 4-612 6-484 I. C. C. CITATIONS. Vol. 4 Page 87 PROCTOR & GAMBLE v. C H. & D. RY. CO. (3 I. C. REP. 131.) Classification of common soap. Elements entering into classification of freight. Increasing rate by charging for gross weight of package. Cited: ICC IC cc 4-443 9-446 cc 3-374 6-56 9-482 4-371 9-440 9-484 104 SAN BERNARDINO BOARD OF TRADE v. A. T. & S. FE RY. CO. (3 I. C. REP. 138.) Violation of Fourth Section of Act. Procedure — Suflficiency of petition. Actual water competition as justifying greater charge. Filing of tariff raises no presumption as to legality of rates. Burden of proof — When on carrier to justify excessive charges. Reversed: SO Fed. 29S; 149 U. S. 264; 37 L. Ed. 727; 13 S. C. 837. Cited: ICC 7-235 56 Fed. 947. 7-279 9-50 21-417 116 In re FOOD PRODUCTS. (3 I. C. REP. 151.) Commission's duty and powers under Act. What constitutes compliance with Act in reference to hearings. Commission has no authority to punish for contempt. Cited: ICC IC cc 4-48 cc 3-93 5-111 3-746 131 RICE, ROBINSON & WITHEROP v. W. N. Y. & P. R. R. CO. (3 I. C. REP. 162.) Relative rates on competitive traffic. Reasonableness of rates affected by consolidation of competing lines. Discrimination in rates based on mode of shipment. Discrimination in charges for weight of container. Discrimination in exaction of unreasonable rent for private cars. Duty of carrier to supply suitable equipment. Discrimination in allowances for leakage. Cited: ICC IC 4-316 3-310 5-201 3-844 5-427 4-167 6-455 12-410 158 CHICAGO BOARD OF TRADE v. C. & A. R. R. CO. (3 I. C. REP. 233.) Relative rates on live hogs and hog product. Duty of carrier to properly equip its road with cars. Omission to provide cars no excuse for charging preferential rates. Cost of transportation as element of rate. Cited: ICC IC 4-618 10-447 3-518 5-520 10-452 4-226 10-429 21-505 10-430 Vol. 4 I. C. C. CITATIONS. Page 195 POUGHKEEPSIE IRON CO. v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. R. CO. (3 I. C. REP. 248.) Relative rates on pig iron. Division of tlirough rate lower than corresponding local. Rates as affected by cost of production of article transported. No power to make order affecting carrier not party to proceedings. Cited: ICC IC 4-315 3-309 212 HARVARD v. PENNSYLVANIA CO. (3 I. C. REP. 257.) Elements entering into classification of freight. Difference in classification based on volume of traffic, unreasonable. Undue preference in allowing carload ratings. Cited: ICC IC 5-111 3-746 9-83 9-85 25-472 228 RICE V. A. T. & S. FE RY CO. (3 I. C. REP. 263.) Competition as a factor in making rates. Principle of group rates. Allegations of petition must be sustained to warrant a finding. Cited: ICC IC S-202 3-845 50 Fed. 305. 21-417 4-328 4-330 251 KING & CO. V. N. Y. N. H. & H. R. R. CO. (3 I. C. REP. 272.) Joint rate lower than combination of rates to intermediate points. Joint rate matter of agreement between connecting carriers. Sufficiency of complaint under Fourth Section. Water competition as affecting rates. Cited: ICC IC 4-243 3-269 74 Fed. 527. 265 CAPEHART v. L. & N. R. R. CO. (3 I. C. REP. 278.) Through rates and billing between rail and independent water lines. Through rates and billing are matters of agreement between carriers. What constitutes a through rate. What water carriers are subject to the Act. Discrimination by rail carrier in connections via water. Cause of action must be predicated on duty imposed by Act. Jurisdiction over carriers prerequisite to granting reparation. Cited: ICC IC 4-718 3-549 4-726 3-552 4-727 4-180 5-458 7-555 281 BATES & BATES v. P. R. R. CO. (3 I. C. REP. 296.) Rehearing of complaint charging discrimination in rates. Relative rates on corn and corn products. Cost of service as factor in rate. Cited: ICC 8-271 14-71 I. C. C. CITATIONS. Vol. 4 Page 296 HADDOCK v. D. L. & W. R. R. CO. (3 I. C. REP. 302.) Practice — Rule under which subpoena duces tecum will issue. Evidence inadmissible to contradict terms of written contract. Rates fixed by written agreement may be shown to be unreasonable. Discrimination by carrier in favor of itself as a shipper. Cited: ICC IC cc 4-53S cc 3-460 128 Fed. 59. 7-33 138 Fed. 854. 7-38 164 Fed. 247. 200 U. S. 361. 417 KAUFFMAN MILLING CO. v. M. P. RY. CO. (3 I. C. REP. 400.) Relative rates on wheat and flour. Exceptions to classification — when reasonable. Power of Congress to regulate rates. Cited: ICC ICC 8-304 10-35 10-40 16-76 8-308 10-36 10-45 21-174 8-309 10-37 12-263 8-310 10-38 14-72 443 PROCTOR & GAMBLE v. C. H. & D. R. R. CO. (3 I. C. REP, 374.) Rehearing not granted on mere allegation of error in finding of fact. Cited: ICC IC cc 4-87 9-446 cc 3-131 6-56 9-482 4-371 9-440 9-484 447 NEW YORK BOARD OF TRADE v. P. R. R. CO. (3 I. C. REP. 417.) Import rates. Act provides for regulation of foreign commerce. Import rates^ — conditions surrounding making of. Inland joint tariffs. "Like kind of traffic'' defined. Carriers may lawfully make commodity class rates. Unjust discrimination through difference in classification. Sustained: 52 Fed. 187; 57 Fed. 948. Reversed: 162 U. S. 197; 40 L. Ed. 940; 16 S. C. 666. Cited: ICC IC cc 3-137 8-253 cc 2-553 8-110 13-95 5-438 8-115 13-96 8-117 535 COXE BROS. & CO, v. LEHIGH VALLEY R. R. CO. (3. I. C. REP. 460.) Anthracite coal rates. Classification of freight. Group rates. Through carriage via connecting lines. Duty of Commission to determine reasonable rates. Division of through rate lower than corresponding local. Long maintained rates prima facie evidence of reasonableness. Reversed: 49 Fed. 177; 74 Fed. 784; 82 Fed. 1002. Cited in ICC ICC IC cc 4-296 6-554 cc 3-302 128 Fed. 59. 5-110 7-33 3-726 164 Fed. 247. 5-111 7-38 3-746 200 U. S. 361 5-125 8-641 4-139 5-370 21-147 4-376 6-67 25-473 6-321 Vol. 4 I. C. C. CITATIONS. Page 588 DELAWARE STATE GRANGE v. N. Y., P. & N. R. R. CO. (3 I. C. REP. 554.) Reasonableness of rates on Fruit and Vegetables. Relative value of service — How determined and by whom. Rates to be reasonable must permit of movement of traffic. Reversed: See 7th Ann. Rep. of Com., p. 29. Cited: ICC IC 5-112 8-18 3-746 5-161 8-19 3-828 S-S29 19-7S 4-20S 5-543 4-211 611 SQUIRE & CO. V. MICHIGAN CENTRAL R. R. CO. (3 I. C. REP. 515.) Relative rates on live hogs, cattle and dressed products of both. Discrimination in kinds of traffic. Relation of rates rest upon fixed and stable conditions. Violation of Act by one carrier not justification for violation by compet- ing carriers. Cited in ICC 10-430 13-248 21-499 630 SHAMBERG v. DELAWARE. LACKAWANNA & WEST. R. R. CO. (3 I. C. REP. 502.) Discrimination in rebates for use of private cars. Unlawful preference in re allowances for use of private stock cars. Payment by carriers of cost of lighterage. Cited in ICC 7-164 12-318 17-45 664 BOSTON FRUIT & PRODUCE EX. v. N. Y. & N. E. R. R. CO. (3 I. C. REP. 493.) Reasonableness of rates requiring special train service. "Common control, management or arrangement" defined and applied. Commission will take judicial notice of tariffs filed with it. Construction of Act — Sections Seven and One. Direct damage not necessary to enable party to complain. Cited: ICC IC 5-101 3-742 5-112 3-746 5-369 4-139 5-604 -4-271 6-48 4-368 686 HAMILTON & BROWN v. C. R. & C. R. R. CO. (3 I. C. REP. 482.) Unjust discrimination against locality. Through rates made by adding to basing-point-rate the local rate there- from. Basing point system of rate making in South criticized. Cited: ICC IC 5-98 3-741 5-116 3-748 5-369 4-139 9-242 I. C. C. CITATIONS. Vol. 5 Page 694 NEW ORLEANS COTTON EXCHANGE v. L. N. O. & T. RY. CO. (3 I. C. REP. 523.) Cotton rates — Posting of schedules. No order will be issued where complaint is satisfied before hearing. Cited: ICC 10-63 702 NEW YORK & NORTHERN RY. CO. v. N. Y. & N. E. R. R. CO. (3 1. C. REP. 542.) Discrimination between connecting lines. Unlawful to decline to enter into arrangement for joint rate Sustained: SO Fed. 867. Cited: ICC 4-116 47 Fed. 780. 4-539 59 Fed. 405. 4-541 733 BEAVER & CO. v. P. C. C. & ST. L. R. R. CO. (3 I. C. REP. 564.) Classification of soap. Elements of classification — Commercial value of article. Cited: ICC 9-446 744 JAMES & MAYER BUGGY CO. v. C. N. O. & T. P. RY. CO. (3 I. C. REP. 682.) Same rate for longer and shorter distances. Greater charge for shorter distances. When water competition will justify greater charge for shorter distance. Intrastate transportation of interstate commerce. Reversed: 56 Fed. 925; 162 U. S. 184; 40 L. Ed. 935; 16 S. C. 700. Cited: ICC IC 175 U. S. 659. 5-248 6-263 3-863 4-610 5-370 6-264 4-139 4-615 5-402 6-275 4-152 6-7 7-163 4-345 6-48 7-373 4-350 6-233 8-287 4-368 6-245 8-302 4-520 6-257 4-523 VOLUME 5. 1891—1893. BOSTON FRUIT & PRODUCE EX. v. N. Y. & N. E. R. R. CO. (3 I. C. REP. 604.) Application for rehearing. Commission determines as to reasonableness of whole rate and not parts thereof. Cited: ICC IC 5-630 4-281 Vol. 5 I. C. C. CITATIONS. 13 RAILROAD COMMISSION OF FLORIDA v. S. F. & W. RY. CO. (3 I. C. REP. 688.) General investigation not precluded by want of authority of com- plainant. Injury resulting from failure to notify public of advance in rates. Advances in rates should be justified by carriers. Reparation for injuries caused by unreasonable advance in rates. Water carriers may become subject to Act. When willful failure to obey Act constitutes misdemeanor. Reversed: 167 U. S. 512; 42 L. Ed. 257. Cited: ICC IC 5-119 7-554 3-749 190 Fed. 960. cc 5-136 8-604 3-750 5-458 9-305 4-180 5-541 14-482 4-211 6-22 14-493 4-357 44 LEHMAN, HIGGINSON & CO. v. T. & P. RY. CO. (3 I. C. REP. 706.) Manner in which joint tariffs are legally established. Sum of locals are to apply in absence of through joint rate. Discrimination between points on main line and points on branch. Cited: ICC 7-329 7-342 7-554 12-168 57 HEXEL MILLING COMPANY v, ST. L. A. & T. H. R. R. CO. (3 I. C. REP. 701.) Free cartage and side track delivery. Unlawful discrimination in making free cartage allowances. Lawful allowances for cartage service performed by shipper. Unlawful to require shippers to clean and repair cars furnished. Rates — Competing cities on opposite banks of river. Cited: 74 Fed. 837. 69 In re FREE CARRIAGE OF PERSONS BY B. & M. R. R. CO. (3 I. C. REP. 717.) Regulations for transportation of persons free or at reduced rates. Free transportation to public ofificials, imlawful. Order pendente lite will be given in partly concluded investigation. Cited: ICC IC 5-153 3-794 66 Fed. 148. 5-154 161 Fed. 611. 84 MACLOON v. C. & N. W. RY. CO. (3 I. C. REP. 711.) Unlawful requirement by carrier of promise by consignee to pay de- murrage charges. Duty of Commission in re awarding reparation. Unlawful prejudice in making delivery of carload freight. Cited: ICC IC 5-111 3-746 137 Fed. 349. 5-151 3-756 7-53 17-363 17-371 I. C. C. CITATIONS. Vol. 5 Page 91 PERRY V. F. C. & P. R. R. CO. (3 I. C. REP. 740.) Commission's power to ascertain, order and enforce reasonable rates. Power to award reparation construed. Reasonableness of through rate as determined by divisions thereof. Influence of water competition on rates. Violation of long-and-short haul clause. Reparation for speculative damages not awarded. Burden of proof under reparation claim. Cited: ICC IC 5-121 6-SS4 3-727 109 Fed. 836. S-126 7-SS4 3-750 6-317 8-287 122 MURPHY, WASEY & CO. v. WABASH R. R. CO. ' (3 I. C. REP. 725.) Reasonable rates on mixed carloads of furniture. Power and duty of Commission to fix minimum rates. Differentials in carload rating based on loading capacity of commodity. Cited: ICC IC 5-449 4-176 5-524 4-227 6-554 153 HARVEY v. L. & N. R. R. CO. (3 I. C. REP. 793.) Free passes and free transportation. Giving of free passes to public ofificials is unlawful. Cited: 66 Fed. 148. 156 LINCOLN CREAMERY v. UNION PACIFIC RY. CO. (3 I. C. REP. 794.) Factors in determining reasonableness of rates. Comparison with rates in other localities. Where no discrimination is alleged, what must afifirmatively appear to sustain charge of unreasonableness of rate. Cited: ICC 12-433 13-635 166 TOLEDO PRODUCE EXCHANGE v. L. S. & M. S. RY. CO. (3 I. C. REP. 830.) Character and extent of Commission's power. Application of principle of estoppel by record. Evidence introduced in one case may be used in another. Arbitrary dififerential rates between competitive cities. Cited: " " 5-456 8-111 8-113 11-19 193 RICE v. C. W. & B. R. R.'CO. (3 I. C. REP. 841.) Commission no authority to compel furnishing of any particular kind of equipment. Discrimination to be unlawful must be disadvantage under similar cir- cumstances. Only competition traffic may be subject to unjust discrimination. Difference in rates affected by low rate on returned loads. Commission's rulings not necessarily precepts for general observance. Allowances for leakage and evaporation. Use of estimated or constructive weights. Cited: ICC IC 5-441 5-611 4-173 5-462 14-176 4-181 5-463 4-182 5-465 4-322 ICC IC 11-78 4-179 13-31 13-33 Vol. 5 I. C. C. CITATIONS. Page 234 RAWORTH v. NORTHERN PACIFIC RY. CO. (3 I. C. REP. 857.) Pleadings — Answer under 4th Section must be definite and certain. Water competition as justifying departure from 4th Section. Intent and purpose of long-arid-short-hafll clause. Unjust discrimination may exist where departure from 4th Section is justifiable. Federal charter does not preclude jurisdiction of Commission. Cited: ICC IC 5-479 6-245 4-183 197 Fed. 64. 5-511 6-675 4-197 6-238 8-626 4-612 4-615 264 EAU CLAIRE BOARD OF TRADE v. C. M. & ST. P. RY. CO. (4 I. C. REP. 65.) Distance as a factor in rate making. Rates — Equalization of commercial conditions unlawful. There can be no true comparison between rates not made by same carrier. Participation in traffic is necessary element in discrimination. Cited: ICC IC 5-627 7-165 4-280 6-245 7-191 4-615 6-477 18-505 6-480 23-34 6-557 23-149 6-675 23-352 7-164 25-355 299 ANTHONY SALT CO. v. M. P. RY. CO. (4 I. C. REP. 33.) Limitation of carrier's right to establish commodity rates. Unlawful adjustment of rates to overcome natural advantages. Cited: ICC 22-417 324 TRAMMELL v. CLYDE STEAMSHIP CO. (4 I. C. REP. 120.) Practice — Effect of receivership of railroad on proceedings. "Common control, management or arrangement" construed. Manner of construction of through rate has no bearing on question of reasonableness thereof. Practice — Consideration given to decisions of English courts. Competition as element of dissimilar conditions under 4th Sectio.n. Justification for departure from Fourth Section primarily determined by carrier. Practice — Rule of evidence in re 4th Section violations. Reversed: 88 Fed^ 186^ 93 Fed. 83; 181 U. S. 29; 45 L. Ed. 729; Cited: 21 . S. C. ICC 512. IC 5-502 6-6 7-237 4-193 4-520 56 Fed. 943. 5-547 6-8 7-373 4-213 4-523 74 Fed. 832. 5-566 6-48 8-287 4-221 4-610 74 Fed. 837. 5-596 6-233 8-604 4-267 175 U. S. 659. 5-604 6-257 9-70 4-271 181 U. S. 7. 5-605 6-263 12-169 4-273 5-607 6-264 17-531 4-281 5-609 6 633 21-406 4-350 5-630 6-645 4-351 6-3 7-64 4-368 I. C. C. CITATIONS. Vol. 5 Page 415 INDEPENDENT REFINERS ASSN. v. W. N. Y. & P. R. R. CO. (4 I. C. REP. 162.) Extent of carrier's duty to equip its road with cars. Principles governing leasing of privately owned cars. Discrimination in charge based on mode of shipment. Legality of pooling agreement between carrier and pipe line. Sustained: 82 Fed. 192. Reversed: 137 Fed. 343; 208 U. S. 208; 52 L. Ed. 4S6; 28 S. C. 268. Cited: ICC 6-52 6-380 6-316 6-450 cc 6-378 6-455 466 In re TRANSPORTATION OF COAL BY L. & N. R. R. CO. (4 I. C. REP. 157.) Relative rates on coal. Discrimination in "manufacturers' rate". Reversed: 73 Fed. 409. 478 MERCHANTS UNION OF SPOKANE v. N. P. RY. CO. (4 I. C. REP. 183.) Water competition as affecting Pacific Coast terminal rates. Discrimination — Through rate less than intermediate rate. Discrimination between Spokane and other Pacific Coast terminals. Grouping of Pacific Coast terminal rates. Provisions in Federal charter do not oust jurisdiction of Commission. Reversed: 83 Fed. 249. Cited: ICC IC 5-252 3-864 7-235 15-384 15-389 514 POTTER MANUFACTURING CO. v. C. & G. T. RY. CO. (4 I. C. REP. 223.) Investments in business based on carrier's agreement to continue rates. Rates depriving shipper of natural advantage are illegal. Unlawful discrimination between competitive articles of commerce. Determination of question of correct weights of shipments. Reasonableness of rates as dependent on character of commodity. Cited: ICC 7-SS5 20-599 529 LOUD V. SOUTH CAROLINA R. R. CO. (4 I. C. REP. 205.) Enforcement of reparation order on road in hands of receiver. Value of commodities as factor in rates. Cost of service as factor in rate. Higher rate is warranted where special servifce is required. Presumptions to be made from voluntary reduction of rates. Cited: ICC , IC 6-9 8-14 4-351 6-92 8-15 4-388 7-SSS 8-19 8-7 Vol. 5 I. C. C. CITATIONS. Page 546 BOARD OF TRADE OF CHATTANOOGA v. E. T. V. & G. R. R. CO. (4 I. C. REP. 213.) Preference between localities enforced by competition is not unjust. Essential elements in the lawful meeting of competition between carriers. Inference to be drawn when great disparity exists between rates to com- petitive and intermediate points. Sustained: 85 Fed. 107; 99 Fed. 52. Reversed: 181 U. S. 1; 45 L. Ed. 719; 21 S. C. 516. Cited: ICC IC 6-258 10-111 4-523 175 U. S. 659. 6-263 10-112 6-264 10-123 7-373 571 CHAMBER OF COMMERCE OF MINNEAPOLIS v. G. N. RY. CO. (4 I. C. REP. 230.) Complaint should be directed against through rate, not division thereof. Localities are entitled to advantage of their natural location. Cited: ICC IC 5-627 7-158 4-280 6-245 7-164 4-615 6-480 7-510 6-675 24-101 596 GERKE BREWING COMPANY v. L. & N. R. R. CO. (4 I. C. REP. 267.) Application of Fourth Section to converging lines. Competition between carriers subject and not subject to Act. Disparity between rates under Fourth Section must be reasonable. Cited: ICC IC 6-258 4-523 74 Fed. 837. 6-263 6-264 612 JAMES & ABBOTT v. CANADIAN PACIFIC RY. CO. (4 I. C. REP. 274.) No dismissal of complaint because of want of direct damage. Burden of proof under allegation of water competition. Shippers are entitled to advantage of their natural location. Burden of proof upon showing of departure from mileage rates. Extent of inquiry in determining reasonableness of rates. Right of reparation not necessarily conferred where rate is found to be unreasonable. Cited: ICC 6-480 7-555 6-557 15-338 7-164 21-500 7-235 638 BROWNELL v. C. & C. M. R. R. CO. (4 I. C. REP. 285.) Comparison of analogous articles as element in classification. Differential between carload and less-than-carload ratings. Burden of proof under allegation of unjust discrimination. Power of concentrated business interests to force concessions discussed. Cited: ICC 11-410 19-401 28-208 I. C. C. CITATIONS. Vol. 6 Page VOLUME 6. 1893—1896. 1 BOARD OF TRADE OF TROY v. A. M. R. R. CO. (4 I. C. REP. 348.) Receivership of road does not affect jurisdiction of Commission. Continuity of through transportation as afifected by composition of rate. What constitutes agreement between carriers for through route. Local rate prima facie excessive as part of through rate. Wheii burden of proof is on carrier to justify disparity between rates. Discrimination based on importance and extensiveness of commercial interests. Rates; — Correction at one point as disturbing rates at other points. Practice — Capacity of parties to make complaint. Reversed: 69 Fed. 227; 74 Fed. 715; 168 U. S. 144; 42 L. Ed. 414; 18 S. C. 45. Cited: ICC IC 6-48 9-247 4-368 6-233 12-169 4-610 6-252 17-531 7-344 28-284 36 PHELPS & CO. V. TEXAS & PACIFIC RY. CO, (4 I. C. REP. 363.) Carrier's charges for receiving and delivering must be published. Carrier only has lien on freight for lawful charges. Discrimination resulting from shipper's refusal to pay excessive rate. Practice of billing shipments at estimated weights. Effect of retention by carrier of overcharge. Carrier's terminal expense is included in rate. Unlawful discrimination between consignee in making delivery. Cited: ICC 6-616 168 Fed. 173. 17-372 52 INDEPENDENT REFINERS ASSOCIATION v. P. R. R. CO. (4 I. C. REP. 369.) Procedure — Depositions under application for rehearing. Cited: 192 Fed. 342. 85 DUNCAN v. A. T. & S. FE RY. CO. (4 I. C. REP. 385.) Remedy in courts for injury due to loss or damage to shipment. Contract for different rate than published in tariff. Rate in one direction does not establish unreasonableness of rate in opposite direction. Validity of rates and contract limiting carrier's liability. Discrimination based upon business motives of shipper, unlawful. Character of service and earnings as creating dissimilar conditions of transportation. Elements of classification — ^Value of article. Legality of agreement between transcontinental lines in re rates. Cited: ICC 9-644 118 Fed. 628. 10-225 195 Fed. 559. 17-127 113 CATOR V. SOUTHERN PACIFIC CO. (4 I. C REP. 397.) Right of carrier to establish or refuse excursion rates. Comparison of passenger rates charged during different season of year. Cited: ICC 13-299 18-63 17-215 21-434 17-216 Vol. 6 I. C. C. CITATIONS. Page 121 MORREL-L v. UNION PACIFIC RY. CO. (4 I. C. REP. 469.) Comparison as basis for determining reasonableness of rates. Comparison of rates via rival lines. * Cited: ICC 6-S21 6-547 6-528 12-433 6-543 13-635 6-546 131 NEWLANDS v. NORTHERN PACIFIC R. R. CO. (4 I. C. REP. 474.) Duty of carrier to forward shipment via cheapest through route. Reasonableness of rates via competing routes. Reasonableness of group rates. Reasonableness of rates as affected by carrier's investment in property. Market value of commodity as determining reasonableness of rates. Transportation charges for property of another railroad. Cited: ICC 6-521 6-547 6-528 6-622 6-543 7-165 6-546 148 PAGE v. D. L. & W. R. R. CO. (4 I. C. REP. 525.) Acquiescence in violation of lawr cannot be pleaded in bar. Principles governing freight classification. Power of Commission to correct classifications. Reversed: 64 Fed. 723. Cited: ICC cc 6-548 54 Fed. 730. 9-83 9-85 9-304 195 FREIGHT BUREAU CIN. CHAM. OF COM. v. C. N. O. & T. P. RY. (4 I. C. REP. 592.) Agreement between carriers to establish rates. Comparison as basis for determining reasonableness of rates. Rates to equalize commercial conditions are unlawful. Undue preference in arbitrary division of rate-territory. Imposition of fines and penalties for violation of agreement between car- riers is tantamount to the unlawful pooling of freight. Discrimination in applying rates via connecting lines. Reversed: 76 Fed. 183; 167 U. S. 479; 42 L. Ed. 243; 17 S. C. 896. Cited: ICC 6-284 18-441 62 Fed. 690. 6-286 29-477 64 Fed. 981. 6-675 188 Fed. 244. 188 Fed. 253. 257 BEHLMER v. MEMPHIS & CHARLESTON R. R. CO. (4 I. C. REP. 520.) Competition does not justify violation of 4th Section in absence of an order of relief. Rule of evidence as to proof of dissimilar conditions varies in different proceedings. Measure of proof required where dissimilar conditions is pleaded as a defense. Reversed: 71 Fed. 835; 175 U. S. 648; 44 L. Ed. 309; 20 S. C. 209. Sustained: 83 Fed. 898. Cited: cc 169 U. S. 644. I. C. C. CITATIONS. Vol. 6 Page 267 In re FORM AND CONTENTS OF RATE SCHEDULES. (4 I. C. REP. 698.) Assent of connecting carrier, neccessary to establishment of joint rate. Nature of proportional tariffs. Routes should be indicated on tariffs. Tariffs should be adequate in statement and properly authenticated. Cited: ICC 7-330 295 TRUCK FARMERS' ASSN. OF CHARLESTON v. N. RY. CO. of S. C. Lighterage charges as part of total cost of transportation. Charging for a less service the compensation deemed adequate for a greater is prima facie evidence of unreasonableness. Principles governing the leasing of privately owned cars. Duty of carrier to furnish refrigeration in transit. Reversed: 74 Fed. 70; 83 Fed. 611. / Cited: ICC j 10-376 148 Fed. 973. 17-427 335 MICHIGAN BOX COMPANY v. F. & ^. M. R. R. CO. Rate between box shooks and lumber. ' Time will be allowed for making proof under reparation claim. Cited: ICC 7-SS4 19-143 T 343 HILL V. N. C. & ST. L. R. R. CO. Basing point system of rate making in South criticized. Preferential rates in favor of distributing centers. ' Distance as a controlling element in fixing reasonable rates. Joint through rate as violating provisions of 4th Section. Cited: ICC 7-191 23-145 28-175 28-283 361 CORDELE MACHINE SHOP v. L. & N. R. R. CO. Rates made in competition between long and short haul lines. Presumption that greater charge for shorter distance is unreasonable; Competitive or basing point system in South criticized. Cited: ICC 6-35S 7-235 12-134 378 INDEPENDENT REFINERS ASSN. v. W. N. Y. & P. R. R. CO. Receivers and lessees of railroads are subject to Act. Responsibility of carriers parties to through rates. Procedure under reparation claims. Members of complaining association entitled _ to reparation. When all carriers on route need not be parties defendant. Reversed: 137 Fed. 343; 208 U. S. 208; 52 L. Ed. 456; 28 S. C. 268. Cited: ICC cc 5-415 10-98 6-527 12-169 7-537 20-610 7-555 21-20 Vol. 6 I. C. C. CITATIONS. Page 455 RICE, ROBINSON & WITHEROP v. W. N. Y. & P. R. R. CO. Re-opening case to award reparation. Unwise and unjust to amend final order entered years previous and promptly obeyed by carriers. Cited: ICC 17-491 458 DANIELS v. CHICAGO, ROCK ISLAND & PACIFIC R. R. CO. Definition of word "line" as used in Act. Comparison of division of through rate with corresponding local. Through rates as basis for determining legality of local rates. Elements of discrimination and preference. Act does not undertake to equalize commercial advantages. Application of principle that mileage rate tends to decrease inversely with the distance. • Relation of rates between competing towns. Practice — When not necessary to make initial carrier party to pro- ceedings. Cited: ICC 23-34 168 Fed. 167. 23-351 488 COLORADO FUEL & IRON CO. v. SOUTHERN PACIFIC CO. Practice — Nature of proceedings necessary to secure relief under Fourth Section. Relative adjustment of rates as affected by character of traffic. Considerations determining reasonableness of through and local rates. Rates must permit of movement of low-class commodities. Relation of rates to different kind of traffic. Water competition as affecting interior points. Method of making and publishing Transcontinental rates criticized. Sustained: 74 Fed. 42. Reversed: 101 Fed. 779; 186 U. S. 480; 46 L. Ed. 1264; 22 S. C. 934. Cited: ICC 7-278 8-628 8-367 21-417 8-406 27-131 520 EVANS V. UNION PACIFIC R. R. CO. Leave of court to complain against receiver of railroad not necessary. Standard of comparison of rates between roads in different sections of the country. Cited: ICC 7-555 12-433 19-73 548 PAGE V. DELAWARE, LACKAVyANNA & WESTERN R. R. CO. Procedure under continuing jurisdiction of Commission. Practice — When not necessary to proceed against all lines maintaining rates complained of. Rates must be reasonable relatively as well as reasonable per se. Elements entering into classification. Cited: ICC cc 6-148 168 Fed. 167. 9-83 568 JOHNSON-LARIMER DRY 'GOODS CO. v. A. T. & S. FE RY. CO. Competition between carriers as affecting reasonableness of rates. Rate schedules should be readily intelligible to the shipping public. Cited: ICC 7-278 10-461 10-462 ; , 10-472 I. C. C. CITATIONS. Vol. 7 Page 588 McCLfiLEN v. SOUTHERN PACIFIC CO. Unjust discrimination through violation of long-and-short-haul clause. Competition as grounds for relief under Fourth Section. Reversed: 105 Fed. 703. 632 LYNCHBURG BD. OF TRADE v. OLD DOMIN'N STEAMSHIP CO. Relation of rate wars to reasonableness of rates. Application of 4th Section to competition produced by carriers subject to Act. Measure of recovery in reparation proceedings. Cited: ICC 7-177 7-374 7-179 10-98 7-237 10-350 647 COMMERCIAL CLUB OF OMAHA v. C, R. I. & P. R. R. CO. Rates cannot be fixed to overcome natural advantages. Commission has no power to establish through rates. Commission will render no decision where matter not expressly put in issue. Discrimination in stoppage in transit privileges. Relative rates between competitive cities. Cited: ICC 7-474 21-500 7-667 23-34 8-485 29-444 VOLUME 7. 1897—1898. 33 In re ALLEGED UNLAWFUL RATES ON GRAIN BY A. T. & S. FE. RY CO. Illegal device of carrier to secure traffic. Discrimination by carrier in favor of itself as shipper. Cited: ICC 7-237 164 Fed. 247. 7-385 200 U. S. 400. 15-20 43 REA v. MOBILE & OHIO R. R. CO. What constitutes a sufficient publication and filing of tariffs. Elements of classification. Articles substantially similar should be classified alike. Grouping system of rate making. Cited: ICC 9-204 9-237 61 In re ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF 4TH SEC. BY A. T. & S. FE RY. Disturbance of rate situation not dissimilar condition under 4th Section. Cited: ICC 7-374 69 BOARD OF RAILROAD COMMISSIONERS OF MO. v. E. S. RY. CO. Earning capacity of carrier as affecting rate. Through rates may be greater than sum of locals. State rates as basis for determining reasonableness of interstate rates. Cited: ICC 9-33 12-499 11-462 14-151 11-474 16-412 12-235 Vol. 7 I. C. C. CITATIONS. Page 83 WILLSON V. ROCK CREEK RY. CO. Jurisdiction of commerce between State and District of Columbia. Jurisdiction over interstate electric railways. Land company may sell passenger tickets at half price. Cited: ICC 17-242 191 Fed. 44. 17-249 230 U. S. 335. 22-189 230 U. S. 337. 24-25 92 MILK PRODUCERS PROTECTIVE ASSN. v. D. L. & W. R. R. CO. Discrimination in rates based on mode of shipment. Association may file complaint on behalf of its members. Fourth Section not violated when rates are equal. Free transportation on account of traffic furnished, illegal. Effect of extravagant management on reasonableness of rates. Unreasonable grouping of rates. Interstate commerce between points in same State. Rates must be reasonable in their entirety. Cited: ICC 8-21 15-131 8-24 22-315 8-26 22-576 15-109 26-623 180 CINCINNATI FREIGHT BUREAU v. C. N. O. & T. P. R. R. CO. Relative rates between competing cities. A city is entitled to benefits arising from its location. Distance as a controlling factor in rates. Burden of proof — Where difference in distance is offered as justification for disparity in rates. Rates — Correction at one point disturbing rates at other points. Cited: ICC 7-320 20-188 7-405 22-247 7-474 29-570 7-667 194 MOUNT VERNON MILLING CO. v. C. M. & ST. P. RY. CO. Preference in establishment of side-tracks. Jurisdiction as to construction of spurs and side-tracks. Cited: 118 Fed. 179. 218 PAINE BROS. & CO. v. LEHIGH VALLEY R. R. CO. Discrimination in "ex-lake" grain rates. Differential in rates based on cargo lots and carloads. Cited: ICC 8-259 10-251 11-410 224 BREWER & HANLEITER v. L. & N. R. R. CO. Discrimination in rates between localities. Water competition as justifying higher rate under Fourth Section. Competition between markets or carriers under Fourth Section. Right of carrier to earn proper return on investment Reversed: 84 Fed. 258. Cited: ICC 7-374 109 Fed. 836. 7-384 120 Fed. 935. I. C. C. CITATIONS. Vol. 7 Page 240 In re RATES ON GRAIN BY A. T. & S. FE RY. CO. Unlawful practice of reshipping local traffic at "balance .of through rate". Unjust discrimination in re stoppage in transit privileges. Cited: ICC 8-122 10-660 8-138 16-599 9-373 27-461 9-380 255 SUFFERN, HUNT & CO. v. INDIANA, DECATUR & W. RY. CO. Sufficiency of publication of proposed changes in rates. Legality of regulations governing carload weights. Improper establishment of rules governing carload weights. Duty of shipper to ascertain correct and lawful rate. No presumption as to legality or approval arises from filing schedules. Right of reparation for exaction of excessive charges. Cited: ICC 8-367 9-305 14-632 286 CARY V. EUREKA SPRINGS R. R. CO. Jurisdiction of interstate transportation by team or wagon. Question of similarity of conditions as affected by lack of jurisdiction. Earnings of carrier as element of rate. Extent of Commission's power in fixing rates. Cited: ICC 11-154 12-43 13-280 18-493 323 NEW YORK, NEW HAVEN & HARTFORD R. R. CO. v. PLATT. Failure of carriers to establish joint through rates. What constitutes legal establishment of joint rates. Division of joint rates less than corresponding local. Jurisdiction in re joint rates and through routes. Cited: ICC 7-598 86 Fed. 419. 8-110 93 Fed. 91. 8-119 12-336 26-173 376 GUSTIN v. ILLINOIS CENTRAL R. R. CO. Commission has no power to compel a through rate. Cited: ICC 12-170 386 COMMERCIAL CLUB OF OMAHA v. C. & N. W. RY. CO. Relative rates between competing cities. Group rates — Exception to usage in establishment of is not prima facie unlawful. General public's right to just relation of rates between competing cities. Recognition of natural advantages of location in making of rates. Essential elements of preference and advantage defined. Contracts between carriers to maintain adjustment of rates. Commission has no power to enforce performance of contracts. Cited: ICC 13-633 197 Fed. 64. 13-636 20-188 29-570 Vol. 7 I. C. C. CITATIONS. Page 431 CALLAWAY v. LOUISVILLE & NASHVILLE R. R. CO. Violation 'of Fourth Section. Competition at distant point as affecting intermediate rates. Rates relatively unreasonable and unreasonable per se. What constitutes through transportation. Sustained: 101 Fed. 146; 102 Fed. 709. Reversed: 108 Fed. 988; 190 U. S. 273; 47 L. Ed. 1047; 23 S. C. 687. Cited: ICC 17-531 458 SAVANNAH BUREAU OF FREIGHT v. C. & S. RY. CO. Commission not empowered to establish rates. Not unlawful to charge equal rates for unequal distances. Competition between carriers as a factor in rates. ' Competition justifying discrimination against intermediate points. Cited: ICC 8-46 85 Fed. 117. 8-360 88 Fed. 190. 98 Fed. 22. 175 U.S. 670. 481 CHAMBER OF COM. OF MILWAUKEE v. C. M. & ST. P. RY. CO. Short-line distance as a factor in rates. Undue preference may exist where carrier serves only one of two com- peting cities. Cited: ICC 8-267 24-116 513 CATTLE RAISERS ASS'N v. FT. WORTH & DEN. CITY RY. CO. Discrimination in terminal charges. Right of party to complain not affected by legality of its organization. When intrastate carrier not subject to Act. What constitutes interstate commerce. Determining reasonableness of part of aggregate charge. Discrimination in imposition and absorption of terminal charges. Controlling effect of Court decisions on Commission. Procedure under reparation claims. Reversed: 98 Fed. 173; 103 Fed. 249; 186 U. S. 320; 46 L. Ed. 1182; 22 S. C. 824. Cited: ICC 8-SSl 10-447 14-176 cc 64 Fed. 992. 8-558 11-279 21-627 cc 73 Fed. 753. 8-604 12-335 137 Fed. 357. 8-642 12-510 192 Fed. 337. cc 10-86 13-433 192 Fed. 341. SSS-A CATTLE RAISERS ASS'N v. FT. WORTH & DEN. CITY RY. CO. Petition for rehearing. Reversed: 98 Fed. 173; 103 Fed. 249; 186 U. S. 320; 46 L. E. 1182; 22 S. C. 824 Cited: ICC 10-86 11-279 12-1 12-510 13-433 I. C. C. CITATIONS. Vol. 8 Page 556- AMERICAN WAREHOUSEMEN'S ASS'N v. ILL. CEN. R. R. CO. Discrimination in storage charges for shipments. Complaint may be filed to compel publication of charges. Publication and enforcement required of all charges and rules affecting transportation service. When special service amounts to discrimination. Cited: ICC 8-SS2 8-S60 17-372 593 In re APPLICATION OF A. T. & S. FE RY. CO. UNDER 4TH SEC. Competition with foreign carrier justifies relief under 4th Section. Cited: ICC 8-71 601 SAVANNAH BUREAU OF FREIGHT v. C. & S. RY. CO. Through interstate passenger rates exceeding sum of locals established by State authority. Usually through rate should not exceed sum of locals. State rates as basis for determining reasonableness of interstate rates. Cited: ICC 9-34 14-151 11-462 14-385 11-474 16-412 12-499 612 NEW YORK PRODUCE EXCHANGE v. B. & O. R. R. CO. Differential rates between competing cities. Nature and extent of Commission's jurisdiction. Act doeS not interfere with business operation of railroads unless same contravenes its provisions. When preferences between localities may be lawful. Distance as a factor in rates. Competition between carriers as a factor in rates. Cited: ICC 8-250 11-20 11-61 11-77 13-42 VOLUME 8. 1898—1901, 33 DALLAS FREIGHT BUREAU v. TEXAS & PACIFIC R. R. CO. Indirect control over interstate rates by State authority. Water competition warranting relief under Fourth Section. Cited: ICC 8-360 93 PHILLIPS, BAILEY & CO. v. L. & N. R. R. CO. Preference between competing localities. Violation of long-and-short-haul clause also within purview of Sec- tions 1 and 3 of Act. Competition as an element justifying discrimination. Burden of proof on carrier to justify discrimination. Substantially similar circumstances and conditions, a question of fact. Commission has power to enforce Sections 2, 3 and 4 of Act. Cited: ICC 13-642 18-504 Vol. 8 I. C. C. CITATIONS. Page 110 KEMBLE V. BOSTON & ALBANY R. R. CO. Discrimination between foreign and domestic commerce. Jurisdiction of Commission in re import and export traffic. Extent of publication required of rates on export traffic. Inland division of export rate may be lower than corresponding do- mestic rate. Stability of inland proportion of export rate. Cited: ICC 8-214 8-252 8-2SS 11-65 121 In re KANSAS CITY, MEMPHIS & BIRMINGHAM R. R. CO. Stoppage in transit privilege on cotton shipment. Determinative features of a through shipment. Re-issuance of bills of lading during transit of shipment, unlawful. Transit privileges are part of through service and must be published. Stop-off privileges as aflfecting through rate. Cited: ICC 9-316 176 Fed. 410. 10-214 11-612 23-173 142 DAWSON BOARD OF TRADE v. CENTRAL OF GA. R. R. CO. Discrimination between localities Undue preference in basing point system as used in the South. Competition as justifying discrimination. Cited: ICC 9-179 24-52 9-180 28-176 23-148 28-284 24-49 158 GRAIN SHIPPERS ASS'N v. ILLINOIS CENTRAL R. R. CO. Rates as affected by the value of shipment. Creation of business by low rates._ Capitalization of railroad as factor in determining reasonableness of rate. Nature, extent and' effect of competition must be shown to justify rates upon that ground. Rates must be found unreasonable to sustain claim for reparation. Complainant must make proof of damage in reparation claim. Measure of damages in reparation claims. Cited: ICC 15-339 185 In re EXPORT RATES FROM POINTS EAST AND WEST OF MISSISSIPPI RIVER. Artificial differences created in market conditions by arbitrary differ- ential in rates. Publication of rates on export traffic. State rates, as part of interstate rates, must be published and filed with the Commission. Cited: ICC 8-235 8-314 13-44 I. C. C. CITATIONS. Vol. 8 Page 214 In re RATES ON EXPORT AND DOMESTIC GRAIN. Discrimination between export and domestic traffic. Division of through export trade rate may be lower than corresponding local. Jurisdiction of Commission in re import and export commerce. Whether rates upon domestic traffic contravene provisions of Act is a question of fact. Act applies to cases involving indirect injury to public. Application of export rates to intermediate points. Fourth Section applicable when existence of important industry de- pends upon it. Public policy requires same rate on export wheat and export flour. Competition as affecting rates. Export rates must be published. Evidence of long continued practice as presumption of reasonableness. Cited: ICC 8-314 212 Fed. 327. 10-63 11-410 13-44 277 GUSTIN v. ATCHISON, TOPEKA & SANTA FE R. R. CO. Advantages to basing point from combination of local rates. Local rates, used in combination as basis of through rate, must be reasonable. Rate per ton mile used as basis of comparison in determining reason- ableness of rates. Unequal divisions of through rate between carriers not unlawful. Evidence — Failure of proof. Cited: ICC 9-247 16-387 16-393 17-173 290 In re ST. LOUIS & SAN FRANCISCO RY. CO. Undue preference to localities in rates. Discrimination — Charging higher rate from intermediate points. Carriers must justify departure from rule of Fourth Section. Dissimilarity of circumstances and conditions under Fourth Section. Cited: ICC 12-167 304 BD. OF R. R. COMMISSIONERS OF KAN. v. A. T. & S. FE RY. CO. Diflferentials on grain intended for export. Discrimination against intermediate points on export traffic. Distance as a factor affecting rates. Commission's decisions not necessarily controlling in all similar cases. Application of rule of stare decisis. Cited: ICC 9-617 12-263 10-35 12-S14 10-45 21-174 10-107 23-380 333 CASTLE v. BALTIMORE & OHIO R. R. CO. Equality of service requires equality in charges. ' Evidence — Must establish a breach of legal duty. Cited: ICC 14-269 168 Fed. 167. Vol. 8 I. C. C. CITATIONS. Page 346 CITY OF ST. CLOUD, MINN., v. NORTHERN PACIFIC R. R. CO. Carrier, party to lake-and-rail rates, cannot set up water competition as a defense under Fourth Section. Competition between railways as creating dissimilar conditions. Long-line distance as constituting dissimilar condition. Rates must be relatively reasonable as well as reasonable per se. Cited: ICC 8-425 8-426 8-429 8-430 377 SAVANNAH BUREAU OF FREIGHT v. L. & N. R. R. CO. Considerations determining reasonableness of through and local rates. Through rate should be less than sum of locals. Justification of carrier in refusing to join in through rate. Through rate unreasonable where divisions are in excess of correspond- ing locals. Discrimination because of reshipment. Creation of markets through rate discriminations. Creation of monopoly by rate adjustments. Sustained: 118 Fed. 613. Cited: ICC 8-604 11-381 23-34 409 CITY OF DANVILLE v. SOUTHERN RY. CO. Factors to be considered in determining dissimilar conditions under Fourth Section. One case is not necessarily a precedent for another. Effect of extravagant capitalization on reasonableness of rates. Community is entitled to competitive advantages secured by it. Recognition of natural advantages of localities is not undue preference. Condemnation of system of rate-making into Southern territory. Controlling influence of court decisions on Commission. Practice — Suspension of order to permit carrier to adjust rates. Reversed: 117 Fed. 741; 122 Fed. 800; 195 U. S. 639; 49 L. Ed. 356; 25 S. C. 790. Cited: ICC 8-530 9-247 8-571 10-344 9-43 19-308 9-57 21-407 9-86 443 SPRIGGS v. BALTIMORE & OHIO R. R. CO. Special rates to commuters not unjust nor undulj'- prejudicial. Carriers are allowed but cannot ordinarily be compelled to issue mile- age, excursion and commutation tickets. Commission cannot administer Anti-trust Law. Cited: ICC 12-241 17-216 13-299 18-63 17-215 21-435 481 GUSTIN V. BURLINGTON & MISSOURI RIVER R. R. CO. Water competition as creating dissimilarity of conditions under Fourth Section. Reversed: See 18 Am. Rep. of Com., p. 80. Cited: ICC 8-627 I. C. C. CITATIONS. Vol. 8 Page 503 HAMPTON BOARD OF TRADE v. N. C. & ST. L. R. R. CO. Relative reasonableness of rates between localities. Equalization of through rates with combination of locals to and from trade centers. Competition between markets. Practice — Suspension of order to permit carrier to adjust rates. Reversed: 120 Fed. 934; 195 U. S. 638; 49 L. Ed. 356; 25 S. C. 789. Cited: ICC 9-43 9-57 9-247 21-408 531 PENNSYLVANIA MILLERS' STATE ASS'N v. P. & R. R. R. CO. Discrimination between localities in assessment of demurrage. Difference in free-time allowance based on method of handling. What constitutes reasonable allowance of time for unloading. Reasonableness of demurrage charges. Arrangement for continuous carriage outside of State subjects carrier to provisions of Act. Jurisdiction of Commission over assessment of demurrage. Terminal charges, rules and regulations must be published and filed. Only competitive traffic can be subject to unlawful discrimination. Rule of 4th Section relates to actual transportation and not to demur- rage charges. Cited: ICC 11-170 lis Fed. 375. 14-176 561 HOLMES & CO. v. SOUTHERN RY. CO. Reparation for exaction of unreasonable rates. Burden of proof in reparation claims. Presumption of reasonableness in established rate. Reduction of rate as admission of unreasonablenes of former rate. Reduction of rates by carrier from considerations of policy. Measure of damages in reparation cases. Cited: ICC 8-570 10-535 8-563 10-542 9-305 571 CITY OF DANVILLE v. SOUTHERN RY. CO. Tariffs specifying rates per standard crate on vegetables should state plainly the weight or dimensions of the crate applicable. Cited: ICC 9-57 598 WARREN-EHRET CO. v. CENTRAL RAILWAY OF NEW JERSEY. Inquiry may be made as to reasonableness of divisions when unrea- sonableness of through rate is alleged. Jurisdiction of Commission in re divisions of joint rates. Practice — When intermediate carrier is not necessary party to pro- ceedings. Cited: ICC 18-157 608 KINDEL v. ATCHISON, TOPEKA & SANTA FE RY. CO. Elements entering into determination of relative reasonableness of rates between localities. Absence of direct injury to person or locality does not justify discrim- ination. Cited: ICC 9-48 13-65 15-384 21-417 Vol. 9 I. C. C. CITATIONS. Page 630 McGREW y MISSOURI PACIFIC RY. CO. Discrimination by carrier in favor of itself as a shipper. Classifying coal according to use and applying differentials thereon, not unlawful. Shipper not damaged by carrier's failure to establish rate upon class of coal not produced by him. Reparation only remedy open to shipper for exaction of unreasona- ble rate. Cited: ICC 9-15 VOLUME 9. 1901—1903. 1 CARR V. NORTHERN PACIFIC RY. CO. Discrimination in hauling of private cars. Discrimination in rates and facilities between competitors. Discrimination in rates not necessarily unlawful. Relation of rates determined by the cost and value of service. Discrimination — Low rates granted upon conditions with which only a few can comply. Rates and rules for hauling private cars must be published in tariff. Cited: ICC 10-251 11-410 19-59 17 HILTON LUMBER CO. v. WILMINGTON & WELDON R. R. CO. Application of competition rule to alleged preference. Distance as a factor in rates. Reasonableness of rates under substantially similar conditions. Division of joint rates less than corresponding local. Through rate greater than combined local rates. Higher rate when shipment originates on connecting line. Cited: ICC 14-151 42 HOLDZKOM v. MICHIGAN CENTRAL RY. CO. Competition at distant point as affecting intermediate rate. Water competition as affecting rates under Fourth Section. Volume of traffic does not justify discrimination. Circumstances justifying preference between localities. Cited: ICC 9-220 9-247 19-331 21-417 68 DALLAS FREIGHT BUREAU v. AUSTIN & N. W. R. R. CO. Dissimilarity of conditions under Fourth Section. Competition must have substantial effect upon traffic to create dissim- ilarity of conditions. Cited: ICC 12-428 13-66 78 MYER V. PENNSYLVANIA CO. Principles governing and elements entering into freight classifications. Relationship between classification and rates. Differential between carload and less-than-carload rates. Authority of Commission to order changes in classification Cited: ICC 9-304 25-473 I. C. C. CITATIONS. Vol. 9 Page 118 WILMINGTON TARIFF ASSOCIATION v. C. P. & V. R. R. CO. Relative rates between cities in competition for trade in common territory. Competition as a factor in rate making. Preferential rates must be unlawful in order to obtain their readjustment. Reversed: 124 Fed. 624. Cited: ICC 9-248 11-23S 19-308 160 MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF TIPTON, GA., v. L. & N. R. R. CO. Relative reasonableness of rates between localities. Circumstances and conditions considered in determining reasonable- ness of rates. Reasonable adjustment of rates cannot be secured through competition between carriers. Cited: ICC 23-146 24-52 28-176 28-451 182 CONSOLIDATED FORWARDING CO. v. SO. PACIFIC CO. Publication of joint rates and through routes. Considerations determining reasonableness of through and local rates. Right of shipper to choice of route. Duty of carrier to supply suitable equipment for shipments offered. Carriers may lawfully procure equipment by lease or otherwise. Sustained: 123 Fed. 597; 132 Fed. 829; 137 Fed. 606. Reversed: 200 U. S. 536; 50 L. Ed. 585; 26 S. C. 339. Cited: ICC 10-590 148 Fed. 973. 10-615 176 Fed. 410. 14-483 176 Fed. 419. 17-104 200 Fed. 792. 207 HAWKINS v. LAKE SHORE & MICHIGAN SOUTHERN RY. CO. Discrimination in distribution of cars. Cited: ICC 9-212 216 RED CLOUD MILLING CO. v. SOUTHERN PACIFIC CO. Contract for rate lower than published tariff is void. Cited: ICC 21-417 250 SHIPPERS' UNION OF PHOENIX v. A. T. & S. FE RY. CO. Relative rates between Pacific Coast Terminals and intermediate points. Water competition as effecting terminal rates. Elements to be considered in rate making. Insufificiency of evidence to warrant changing rates which will mate- rially disturb general rate system. Cited: ICC 12-497 14-580 15-384 21-417 Vol. 9 I. C. C. CITATIONS. Page 264 NATIONAL HAY ASSOCIATION v. L. S. & M. S. RY. CO. Elements determining classification of freight. Classification should make equal distribution of burdens of transpor- tation among articles carried. When financial necessity cannot be made excuse for advance in classi- fication and rates. Carrier's duty in re classification of freight. Long continued rate as creating presumption of reasonableness. Reversed: 134 Fed. 942; 202 U. S. 613; SO L. Ed. 1171. Cited: ICC 14-602 15-267 19-36 19-49 25-473 311 DIAMOND MILLS v. BOSTON & MAINE R. R. CO. Milling-in-transit is a special privilege. Shippers not entitled as a matter of right to such privileges. Right of connecting carrier to refuse milling-in-transit privileges. Cited: ICC 10-681 11-101 13-248 22-362 23-173 318 BUSINESS MEN'S LEAGUE OF ST. LOUIS v. A. T. & S. FE RY. CO. Relative reasonableness of rates to and from Pacific Coast Terminals. Water competition as affecting Pacific Coast Terminal rat es. Factors in the determination of reasonableness of rates. Differential between carload and -less-than-carload rates. Relative effect of water competition on carload and less-than-carload traffic. Cited: ICC 14-580 21-355 15-384 21-417 15-388 28-413 15-390 382 In re PROPOSED ADVANCE IN FREIGHT RATES. Rates advanced, without apparent reason, subject to investigation. Basis for determining reasonableness of rates. Cost of service and needs of shipper as affecting rates. Authority of Commission to make investigation on its own initiative. Cited: ICC 10-536 15-394 20-261 188 Fed. 254. 10-539 18-464 20-269 10-620 19-39 20-274 13-677 19-47 24-102 440 PROCTOR & GAMBLE CO. v. C, H. & D. RY. CO. Principles governing determination of reasonableness of classification. Enforcement of percentage classification held unreasonable. Unlawful discrimination in billing at net weight. Mixed carload rates as affecting less-than-carload rates. Presumption of reasonableness arising from long-established rates. Sustained: 146 Fed. 559; 206 U. S. 142; 51 L. Ed. 995; 27 S. C. 648. Cited: ICC 23-483 25-154 25-473 I. C. C. CITATIONS. , Vol. 9 Page 534 MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF WICHITA v. A. T. & S. FE RY. CO. Application of export rate to intermediate points. Competition between carriers as creating unlawful disparity in rates. Practice — Service of complaint on controlling company as notice to sub- sidiary company. Cited: ICC 9-558 13-44 9-571 13-324 12-360 27-462 558 MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF WICHITA v. A. T. & S. FE RY. CO. Competitive conditions governing coal rates. Localities are entitled to natural advantages arising from location. Cited: ICC 10-340 12-78 12-227 13-324 581 MARTEN V. LOUISVILLE & NASHVILLE R R CO. Extent of interest of general public in reasonable rates. What constitutes relative reasonableness of rates. Element of proportion in through rates. Shorter distance charges higher than those to or from longer distance points. Dissimilarity of circumstances and conditions in 4th Section. Cited: ICC 10-547 13-678 16-133 28-582 606 KINDEL v. ATCHISON, TOPEKA & SANTA FE RY. CO. Relative rates between Pacific Coast points and Denver and Missouri River points. Cited: ICC 13-66 620 BUCKEYE BUGGY CO. v. C. C. C. & ST. L. RY. CO. Discrimination in application of carload rates based on ownership of shipment. Principles involved in application of carload ratings. Cited: ICC 14-432 220 U. S. 245. 14-442 220 U. S. 247. 14-455 220 U. S. 250. 642 MACLOON v. BOSTON & MAINE R. R. CO. Charging higher passenger fare in opposite directions. Cited: ICC 10-224 ■ 195 Fed. 559. 18-189 28-620 646 DERR MANUFACTURING CO. v. PENNSYLVANIA R. R. CO. Elements of freight classification. Classification — Impossible to make fine and complicated distinctions in. Cited: ICC 11-405 11-417 11-521 25-474 Vol. 10 I. C. C. CITATIONS^ Page VOLUME 10. 1904—1905. 1 In re TRANSPORTATION OF SALT FROM HUTCHISON, KANS. Allowances to railroads controlled by shipper as amounting to rebates. Cited: ICC 10-402 11-154 29 PRATT LUMBER CO. v. CHI., INDIANA & LOUISVILLE RY. CO. Discrimination between localities by reason of dissimilarity of circum- stances and conditions. Competition between carriers as affecting divisions of joint rate. Cited: ICC 17-132 35 MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF WICHITA v. MO. PACIFIC RY. CO. Differentials between grain and grain products. Commission has no authority to equalize commercial conditions. Practice — New conditions must intervene to warrant re-opening of case. Cited: ICC 12-263 21-174 47 PARKS V. CINCINNATI & MUSKINGUM VALLEY R. R. CO. Discrimination in distribution of coal cars. Embargo on connecting line as ground for refusal to furnish cars. Cited: 230 U. S. 313. 55 In re TARIFFS ON EXPORT AND IMPORT TRAFFIC. Publication of inland proportion of import and export rates. Commission's power to prescribe rules for filing tariffs. Interpretation of Act in re foreign commerce. Cited: 212 Fed. 328. 83 CATTLE RAISERS' ASS'N OF TEXAS v. C. B. & Q. R. R. CO. Procedure under reparation claims. Power to award reparation construed. Practice — An assignee of claims for reparation entitled to award. Stale demands will not be granted by Commission. Pleadings — General averments will not sustain claim for reparation. Practice — Doctrine of res adjudicata does not apply to decisions of Commission. All participating carriers in joint rate proper but not necessary parties to proceedings. Procedure — Limitation of right of action. Evidence — Sufficiency of way-bill reference. Reversed: 164 Fed. 638; 215 U. S. 98. Cited: ICC cc 7-513 12-514 cc 11-238 13-433 cc 11-296 16-463 12-512 27-35 cc 64 Fed. 99. cc 73 Fed. 755. cc 98 Fed. 173. cc 103 Fed. 249. 183 Fed. 934. 187 Fed. 490. cc 186 U. S ;. 320. Ill CHAMBER OF COMMERCE OF CHATTANOOGA v. SO. RY. CO. Application of water competition rule to alleged preference. Rates — Reduction at one point as disturbing rates at other points. Cited: ICC 18-466 197 Fed. 64. 18-506 24-233 I. C. C. CITATIONS. Vol. 10 Page 148 In re TRANSPORTATION OF SALT FROM MICH. TO MO. RIVER. Allowance of division of joint rate to boat line controlled by shipper. Extent of Commission's jurisdiction over divisions of joint rate. Extent of Commission's jurisdiction over water rates. Boat line as a common carrier. No duty of Commission to equalize natural advantages between localities. Cited: ICC 23-367 173 RAILROAD COMMISSION OF KENTUCKY v. L. & N. R. R. CO. Exclusive contract with Stock Yards Company for deliveries. No unjust discrimination where character of service differs. Commission no authority to compel interchange of traffic. Undue preference against traffic must involve injury. Commission no authority to enforce State law. Cited: ICC 10-374 17-47 176 Fed. 410. 11-293 17-104 200 Fed. 792. 11-576 29-443 231 U. S. 228. 12-331 193 CENTRAL YELLOW PINE ASSOCIATION v. V. S. & P. R. R. CO. Allowance of division of joint rate to road owned or controlled by shipper. Preference in granting divisions to tap lines. Practice — An association having no direct interest may complain. Establishment of joint rate and divisioris between common carriers. What constitutes a through shipment. Stoppage in transit privilege on lumber. Cited: ICC 10-399 17-342 176 Fed. 410. 10-506 17-346 182 Fed. 687. 10-545 18-520 209 Fed. 247. 10-546 23-280 234 U. S. 25. 17-338 23-352 17-340 221 HEWINS V. NEW YORK, NEW HAVEN & HARTFORD R. R. CO. Discrimination in parlor car seat rates. Passenger fare rates higher in one direction than in opposite direction between same points. Cited: ICC 18-189 28-620 226 GLADE COAL COMPANY v. BALTIMORE & OHIO R. R. CO. Acts constituting discrimination in distribution of coal cars. Method of loading by shipper as ground for refusal to furnish cars. Difference in rate based on method of loading. Difference in rate based on tonnage shipped. Reparation will not be granted upon general averments. Sustained: 222 U. S. 51; 56 L. Ed. 288. ' Cited: ICC 10-647 12-310 17-372 255 GA. PEACH GROWERS ASS'N v. ATL. COAST LINE R. R. CO. Rates based on released valuation. Factors affecting rate where special transportation service is required. Reasonable refrigeration charges and regulations. Cited: ICC 10-621 12-180 16-429 20-629 Vol. 10 I. C. C. CITATIONS. Page 289 ABERDEEN GROUP COMMERCIAL ASS'N v. M. & O. R. R. CO. Competition creating dissimilarity of conditions affecting transportation. Discrimination in rates between localities. Commission is concluded by decision of courts. Cited: ICC 16-546 309 In re ALLOWANCES TO ELEVATORS BY UNION PAC. R. R. CO. Right of carrier to contract for transfer of grain through elevators. Bulk grain storage as part of transportation service. Reasonableness of allowances for such services. Rights of rival carriers affected by such allowances. Reversed: 176 Fed. 409. Modified: 222 U. S. 42; 56 L. Ed. 83; 32 S. C. 22. Cited: ICC 10-399 14-323 15-92 162 Fed. 840. cc 12-86 14-332 17-104 176 Fed. 410. cc 14-315 14-510 22-SOO cc 178 Fed. 223. 14-318 14-551 cc 222 U. S. 215. 337 DENISON LIGHT & POWER CO. v. MO., KAN. & TEXAS RY. CO. Reasonableness of coal rates. Value of transportation service rendered as affecting rates. Cited: ICC 12-227 352 BLACKMAN v. SOUTHERN RY. CO. Reasonableness of storage charges. Storage rates and regulations must be published and filed. Cited: ICC 11-171 15-282 360 In re REFRIGERATION CHARGES ON P. M. R. R. CO, AND M. C. R. R. CO. Duty of carrier to provide refrigerator cars. Commission has no authority to compel furnishing of refrigerator cars. Carrier may lease cars of one company to exclusion of others. Duty of carrier in re refrigeration cars and charges therefor. Cited: ICC 10-615 pc 148 Fed. 973. 10-411 200 Fed. 792. PC 204 U. S. 671. 378 CINCINNATI CHAMBER OF COMMERCE v. B. & O. R. R. CO. Regulations governing reception and delivery of freight. Commission's jurisdiction extends to freight depot regulations. Shippers must adjust conduct of their business to conform with rea- sonable regulations. Cited: ICC 12-208 385 In re DIVISIONS TO TERMINAL RAILROADS. Allowance of division of joint rate to road owned or controlled by ship- per — Right to become parties to joint tariff. When such divisions become unlawful. Cited: ICC 10-662 17-351 10-673 21-304 15-252 21-317 : , 17-350 23-23 I. C. C. CITATIONS. Vol. 10 Page 422 PAXTON TIE COMPANY v. DETROIT SOUTHERN R. R. CO. Act constituting discrimination in furnishing cars. Cited: ICC 12-311 175 Fed. 31. 17-372 428 CHICAGO LIVE STOCK EXCHANGE v. CHI. GT. WEST. RY. CO. Relation of rates between live stock and its" products. Who may maintain proceedings before the Commission. Cost of transportation as an element in rate making. Value of article carrier as an element in rate making. Relation of rates between raw material and its manufactured products. Right of carrier to lower rates to increase its business. Reversed: 141 Fed. 1003; 209 U. S. 108; 52 L. Ed. 705; 28 S. C. 493. Cited: ICC 21-499 SOS CENTRAL YELLOW PINE ASS'N v. ILL. CENTRAL R. R. CO. Elements to be considered in fixing lumber rates. Allowances of divisions to tap lines. Long maintained rates as presumption of their reasonableness. Prosperity of shipper as a test of reasonableness of rate. Increased cost of operation as a test of reasonableness of rate. Other elements to be considered in determining reasonableness of rates. Advanced rates resulting from concerted action of carriers. Relation of rate to investment of capital in road. Carrier's need of additional revenue as affecting right to advance rates. Sustained: 206 U. S. 441; 51 L. Ed. 1128; 27 S. C. 700. Cited: ICC 10-579 16-327 21-392 195 Fed. 505. 10-582 17-59 22-242 209 Fed. 247. 12-241 17-338 23-280 13-362 17-342 24-689 13-665 18-462 25-59 14-37 18-520 27-324 14-162 19-315 27-513 14-196 19-320 29-94 14-200 20-265 29-586 14-537 20-450 548 TIFT V. SOUTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY. Elements to be considered in establishing lumber rates. Tests to be applied in determining reasonableness of rates. Presumption of unreasonableness in advance of rates long maintained. Commission has no authority to administer anti-trust laws. Advanced rates resulting from concerted action of carriers. Relation of cost of operation to rates. Right of carrier to advance rates solely because of need of additional revenue. Economical use of equipment as an element in rates. Complainant's right to complain not afifected by legality of its organ- ization. Sustained: 138 Fed. 753; 148 Fed. 1021; 206 U. S. 428; 51 L. Ed. 1124; 27 S. C. 709. Cited: ICC 12-237 14-200 22-242 123 Fed. 789. 12-241 16-327 24-689 166 Fed. 217. 13-362 17-59 25-59 170 Fed. 233. 13-665 19-485 26-692 14-38 20-450 27-324 14-162 21-392 29-94 29-586 Vol. 10 I. C. C. CITATIONS. Page 590 CONSOLIDATED FORWARDING CO. v. SO. PACIFIC CO. Reasonableness of rate on citrus fruit. Pooling of traffic in citrus fruits. Refrigeration charges a part of cost of transportation. Cited: ICC cc 9-182 . 148 Fed. 973. 16-429 19-149 20-108 629 RICHMOND ELEVATOR CO. v. PERE MARQUETTE R. R. CO. Discrimination in distribution of cars. Commission has no jurisdiction in cases involving delay or negligence in making delivery. Complaint must show acts of discrimination and effect thereof. Remedy for unjust discrimination to be found in reparation order. Burden of proof in discrimination cases. Allegations of petition must be sustained to warrant a finding. Reparation will not be granted upon general averments. Cited: ICC 11-451 13-81 13-455 640 THOMPSON v. PENNSYLVANIA COMPANY. Practice — Absence of direct damage as affecting right of party to complain. When carrier is justified in refusing to furnish cars. Cited: 230 Fed. 313. 650 CANNON FALLS FARMERS ELEVATOR CO. v. C. G. W. RY. CO. Relative adjustment of rates on grain between localities. Equalization of natural advantages between competing localities. Cited: ICC 15-356 19-417 675 KOCH V. PENNSYLVANIA RAILROAD COMPANY. Discrimination in allowance of milling-in-transit privileges. Cited: ICC 13-248 19-526 23-173 696 HOPE COTTON OIL COMPANY v. TEXAS & PACIFIC RY. CO. Combination of locals less than through rate; reconsignment of ship- ment to secure benefit thereof. Cited: ICC 12-267 13-586 I. C. C. CITATIONS. Vol. II Page VOLUME 11. 1905—1906. 13 In re DIFFERENTIAL FREIGHT RATES TO AND FROM NORTH ATLANTIC PORTS. Port diflferentials upon export and import traffic. Distance and cost of service as factors in rate. Conditions governing the making of ocean rates. Equalization of inland rates via all ports of shipment. Cited: ICC 13-42 20-519 24-57 • 82 ST. LOUIS HAY & GRAIN COMPANY v. C. B. & Q. R. R. CO. What constitutes delivery of carload freight. Allowance of time for reconsignment of shipment. Commission's authority over reconsignment privileges. Cited: ICC 17-372 90 ST. LOUIS HAY & GRAIN CO. v. MOBILE & OHIO R. R. CO. Discrimination in stoppage-in-transit or reconsignment privileges. Reasonableness of reconsignment charges on carload freight. Sustained: 149 Fed. 609; 153 Fed. 728. Reversed: 214 U. S. 299;. S3 L. Ed. 1004; 29 S. C. 678. Cited: 'ICC 11-493 168 Fed. 167. 13-248 168 Fed. 173. 19-534 21-264 25-76 104 CAPITAL CITY GAS COMPANY v. CENTRAL VERMONT RY. CO. Discrimination between shippers in application of rate. "Under substantially similar circumstances and conditions" defined. Absence of actual prejudice will not excuse unjust discrimination. Cited: ICC 11-154 11-379 13-656 16-250 20-432 108 CHARLOTTE SHIPPERS' ASS'N v. SOUTHERN RAILWAY CO. Commission's authority to establish joint through rates. Commission has no jurisdiction over divisions of through rate. Cited: ICC 18-157 19-308 29-557 129 In re REFRIGERATION CHARGES ON PERE MARQUETTE. R. R. Reasonableness of refrigeration charges. Duty of carrier to provide refrigerator cars. . Duty of carrier with respect to refrigeration service. Carrier's responsibility under leased or owned equipment. Refrigeration charges must be published and filed. Commission will not prescribe method or kind of refrigeration charges. Cited: ICC 17-427 PC 148 Fed. 973. PC 204 U. S. 671. Vol. 11 I. C. C. CITATIONS. Page 145 WYLIE V. NORTHERN PACIFIC RAILWAY COMPANY. Discrimination in traffic agreement between carrier, hotel and stage line. Discrimination in performance of same service. Stage coach lines not subject to provisions of Act. Cited: ICC 12-42 13-280 18-493 166 KEHOE & COMPANY v. PHILADELPHIA & READING RY. CO. Reasonableness of demurrage charges. Per diem charges for- rental of cars. Duty of consignee to promptly accept and unload car. Nature and purpose of demurrage charges. Cited: ICC 13-572 25-315 180 In re RATES BETWEEN MEMPHIS AND POINTS IN ARKANSAS. Relative reasonableness of rates between competing localities. Practice-proceedings not restricted to agreement of parties. Cited: ICC 18-421 212 In re RATES ON GRAIN FROM MISSOURI RIVER POINTS. Relationship of rates on corn and corn products. Commission will not equalize business conditions. Cited: ICC 12-263 220 IN re RATES ON GRAIN FROM MISSOURI RIVER POINTS. Relationship of rates on corn and corn products. Transportation conditions as affecting reasonableness of rates. Cited: ICC 12-263 26-291 227 In re RATES ON GRAIN FROM MISSOURI RIVER POINTS. Relationship of rates on corn and corn products. Cited: ICC 26-291 238 In re RATES FROM ST. LOUIS TO TEXAS COMMON POINTS. Increased cost of railroad material and labor as justification for ad- vanced rates. Right of carrier to share in prosperity of shipper. Cost of operation as factor in rates. Carrier competition as factor in rates. Increased development of country as factor in rates. Reversed: 164 Fed. 638; 215 U. S. 98; 54 L. Ed. 112; 30 S. C. 66. Cited: ICC cc 7-513 11-345 cc 64 Fed. 992. cc 10-83 12-241 cc 73 Fed. 755. 11-286 13-677 cc 98 Fed. 173. cc 11-296 20-276 cc 103 Fed. 249. 11-333 20-464 cc 186 U. S. 320. I. C. C. CITATIONS. Vol. 11 Page 277 CATTLE RAISERS ASSO. OF TEXAS v. C. B. & Q. R. R. CO. Union Stock Yards as carrier's depot for delivery of live stock at Chicago. Contract of transportation not performed until delivery is made at Stock Yards. Right of carrier to separate terminal charges from line charges. Reasonableness of terminal charge for delivery. Reversed: 164 Fed. 638; 215 U. S. 98; 54 L. Ed. 112; 30 S. C. 66. Cited: ICC 12-512 200 Fed. 792. 13-433 231 U. S. 288. 14-388 17-47 296 CATTLE RAISERS ASSO. OF TEXAS v. M . K. & T. RY. CO. Factor determining reasonableness of live stock rates. Reasonableness of terminal charge for delivery. Reversed: 164 Fed. 638; 215 U. S. 98; 54 L. Ed. 112; 30 S. C. 66. Cited: ICC cc 7-513 13-429 cc 64 Fed. 992. cc 10-83 14-389 cc 73 Fed. 755. cc 11-238 14-395 cc 98 Fed. 173. 11-286 19-73 cc 103 Fed. 249. 12-241 22-164 cc 186 U. S. 320. 13-420 23-659 382 PLANTERS COMPRESS COMPANY v. C. C. C, & ST. L. RY. CO. Different modes of preparing cotton for shipment. Obligation of carrier to establish carload ratings. Allowing lower rates upon conditions impossible of performance. Any quantity rates. Cited: ICC 11-521 28-208 11-606 29-642 16-593 29-665 25-474 422 MINER v. NEW YORK, NEW HAVEN & HARTFpRD R. R. CO.. Preference in making deliveries between non-competitive articles. Discrimination in making deliveries as between consignees. Regulations requiring unloading carload freight in separate yards. Cited: ICC 14-176 168 Fed. 173. 17-372 29-443 438 RED "ROCK FUEL COMPANY v. BALTIMORE & OHIO R. R. CO. Limitation upon power of State to require track connections. Act covers discrimination in facilities or instrumentalities of shipment. Commission no authority to require sidetrack connections. Discrimination in making sidetrack connections within purview of Act. .Reversed: 153 Fed. 997. 458 ARTZ V. SEABOARD AIR LINE RAILWAY. Through interstate passenger fare greater than sum of locals. State rates as measure of reasonableness of interstate rates. Relation of particular rate to whole schedule in determining reason- ableness. Cited: ICC 11-474 12-499 14-151 14-385 16-412 Vol. 11 I. C. C. CITATIONS. Page 464 BRABHAM v. ATLANTIC COAST LINE RAILROAD COMPANY. State-made rates prima facie reasonable. State-made rates as basis for determining reasonableness of interstate rates. Reasonableness of rates tested by financial condition of carrier. Cited: ICC 12-499 14-lSl 14-386 16-412 481 DEWEY BROS. COMPANY v. BALTIMORE & OHIO R. R. CO. Duty of carrier to forward shipment via cheapest route. Cited: ICC 12-424 153 Fed. 629. 17-294 486 ST. LOUIS HAY^ & GRAIN CO. v. ILLINOIS CENTRAL R. R. CO. Reasonableness of reconsignment charges. Through rate may exceed sum of locals. Cited: ICC 14-543 495 KINDEL v. BOSTON & ALBANY RAILROAD COMPANY. Principles governing establishment of carload ratings. Transcontinental rates as basis of comparison for Denver rates. Cost of service as factor in rates. Competition as factor in rates. Different methods of rate structure. Cited: ICC 11-514 19-401 13-226 21-417 13-227 28-210 15-389 558 FRED G. CLARK COMPANY v. L. S. & M. S, RY. CO. Discrimination in failure to establish joint rates. Connecting carriers not required by Act to establish joint rates. Preference to be unlawful must produce injury. Cited: ICC 26-173 581 NATIONAL MACHINERY &' WRECKING CO. v. P. C. C. fe ST. L. RY. CO. Classification of new and second-hand articles. Value of shipment as factor in rate. Cited: ICC 23-437 619 EATON V. CINCINNATI, HAMILTON & DAYTON RAILWAY CO. Discrimination in distribution of cars. Measure of damages — How ascertained. Cited: ICC 13-81 13-456 17-371 627 WEIL V. PENNSYLVANIA RAILROAD COMPANY. Different rates in opposite directions between same points. Conditions which may justify such inequality of rates. Volume of traffic as factor in rates. Cited: ICC 18-549 195 Fed. 559. 19-401 I. C. C. CITATIONS. Vol. 12 Page 640 FARRAR v. SOUTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY. Fourth Section — Competition justifies lower rate to longer distant point. Fourth Section — Intermediate rates must be reasonable. Per ton-mile revenue as measure of reasonableness of rate. Cited: ICC 17-173 683 VILLAGE OF GOODHUE v. C. G. W. RY. CO. Fourth Section — Carrier competition constituting dissimilarity of con- ditions. Cited: ICC 11-687 VOLUME 12. 1906—1907. 10 In re RAILROAD TELEGRAPH CONTRACTS. Reduced rate transportation to telegraph companies. Limitations governing same. Cited: ICC 16-250 161 Fed. 618. 163 Fed. 114. 13 FREDERICK BRICK WORKS v. NORTHERN CENTRAL RY. CO. Rate on brick, Frederick, Md., to Elberon, N. J. Cited: ICC 25-148 25-670 IS In re FREE TRANSPORTATION OF NEWSPAPER EMPLOYEES. Free transportation to caretakers limited by provisions of Act. Free transportation can only be issued for performance of duty imposed upon carrier. Distinction to be maintained between transportation of persons and property. cc 163 Fed. 114. 23 BLACKWELL MILLING & ELEVATOR CO. v. M. K. & T. RY. CO. Discrimination against traffic originating on connecting lines. Practice — Issuance of order after matters complained of are corrected. Cited: ICC 12-26 29 BIRMINGHAM PACKING CO. v. TEXAS & PACIFIC RY. CO. Conditions justifying establishment of through route. Cited: ICC 12-500 32 AMERICAN NATIONAL LIVE STOCK ASSO. v. T. & P. RY. CO. Public interest as requiring establishment of through route. Duty of carrier to provide equipment for through transportation. Interchange of equipment by connecting lines. Cited: ICC 21-571 175 Fed. 410. 39 In re PASSES TO TRANSFER AND BAGGAGE EX. COMPANIES. Transfer and baggage express companies not subject to Act. Carriers cannot issue free transportation to suqh companies. Cited: ICC pc 12-10 PC 163 Fed. 114. pc 12-15 25-414 Vol. 12 I. C. C. CITATIONS. Page 47 JOHNSON-LARIMER DRY GOODS CO. v. A. T. & S. FE RY. CO. Rate on cotton goods from Texas mills to Wichita, Kans. Competition between localities as factor in rate. Cited: ICC 13-398 51 JOHNSON-LARIMER DRY GOODS CO. v. WABASH R. R. CO. Differential in rates on cotton piece goods from Eastern markets to Kansas City and Wichita. Practice — Effect of non-joinder of necessary parties defendant. Cited: ICC 13-398 58 JOHNSON-LARIMER DRY GOODS CO. v. N. Y. & T. S. S. CO. Rate on knit goods from New York to Wichita and Topeka via Galveston. Fourth Section — Carrier competition as justifying lower rate for longer haul. Cited: ICC 13-399 .61 MASON V. CHICAGO, ROCK ISLAND & PACIFIC RY. CO. Commission no authority to fix rules for reciprocal demurrage. Practice — Production of voluminous records will not be ordered. Cited: ICC 12-404 12> JOHNSON V. ST. LOUIS & SAN FRANCISCO RAILROAD CO. Coal rates from Indian Territory points to Enid, O. T. Carrier not required to meet competition. Rate per ton-mile as factor in coal rates. Cited: ICC 12-227 13-218 12-228 15-339 13-217 16-582 85 In re ALLOWANCES TO ELEVATORS BY U. P. R. R. CO. Definition of elevation. Carrier may unload for shipper. Carrier may grant grain elevation upon equal terms. Carrier may make allowance to shipper for elevation. When allowances for elevation amounts to rebate. Reversed: 176 Fed. 409. Modified: 222 U. S. 42; 56 L. Ed. 83; 32 S. C 22 Cited: ICC cc 10-309 15-96 162 Fed. 840. 13-498 15-150 176 Fed. 410. 14-315 17-47 cc 178 Fed. 226. 14-318 17-104 204 Fed. 478. 14-323 17-107 cc 222 U. S. 215. 14-332 22-500 15-92 28-492 95 In re PARTY RATE TICKETS. Party rate tickets must be open to use of general public. "Similar circumstances and conditions" defined. Competition as factor in rate. Cited: ICC 13-299 14-456 13-524 17-144 14-454 21-435 14-455 I. C. C. CITATIONS. Vol. 12 Page 111 ATCHISON V. MISSOURI PACIFIC RAILWAY COMPANY. Undue preference between cities in allowance for elevation service. Alternatives to relieve unjust discrimination in elevation service. Cited: ICC cc 12-254 1S-1S7 . . 176 Fed. 410. 12-515 15-158 14-321 22-499 15-150 114 PRESTON & DAVIS v. D., L. & W. R. R. CO. Discrimination between commodities in making delivery. Carrier's right to make regulations for safety of terminals. Cited: ICC 14-421 130 ENTERPRISE MANUFACTURING CO. v. GEORGIA R. R. CO. Rate on cotton goods from Southeastern mills to Pacific Coast points. Comparison of rates from different localities as measure of reason- ableness. Locality entitled to natural advantage of location. Water competition as element in Pacific Coast rates. Presumptions arising from prior lower rate. Cited: ICC 12-236 12-456 12-240 21-417 12-452 25-387 I 138 WILHOIT v. MISSOURL KANSAS & TEXAS RAILWAY CO. Rate on oil Pittsburg, Pa., to East St. Louis. Distance as factor in determining reasonableness of rates. Cited: ICC 12-159 17-173 18-78 144 JONES V. ST. LOUIS & SAN FRANCISCO RAILROAD CO. Carrier's right to remove station. Jurisdiction of Commission to compel maintenance of depots. Commission cannot enforce charter, statutory or common law obliga- tion of carrier. Procedure when jurisdictional question is raised. Cited: ICC 17-375 23-233 25-121 163 In re THROUGH ROUTES AND RATES. Through route defined. Legal effect of through rates and routes. Incidents establishing existence of through route. Where no joint through rate in effect combinations of locals apply. Tariffs cannot be given a retroactive effect. Rate in effect at time of initial movement applies. Cited: ICC 13-271 22-68 17-113 23-184 19-435 29-466 19-453 Vol. 12 I. C. C. CITATIONS. Page 178 WEXELBAUM v. ATLANTIC COAST LINE RAILROAD CO. Carrier's duty in transportation of perishable freight. Carrier's duty to publish and file refrigeration charges. Reasonableness of refrigeration charges. Minimum carload weight as factor in rate. Demurrage charges for detention of refrigerator cars. Cited: ICC 15-620 17-427 15-625 20-630 16-108 24-564 16-429 186 PRODUCERS PIPE LINE CO. v. ST. L., I. M. & S. R. R. CO. Formal complaints must be prosecuted with diligence. Cited: ICC 18-413 - ' 196 WALKER v. BALTIMORE & OHIO RAILROAD COMPANY. Carrier cannot restrict privileges to patrons of its line. Express companies must serve .without discrimination. Express company organized and operated by carrier subject to Act. Express company's duty to furnish adequate service. Cited: 168 Fed. 173. 210 SHIEL & COMPANY v. ILLINOIS CENTRAL RAILROAD CO. Breaking bulk of shipment moving under through rate. Unlawful to grant transit privileges not set forth in tariff. Presumptions from long previous existence of lower rates. Cited: ICC 19-13 215 STOWE-FULLER COMPANY v. PENNSYLVANIA R. R. CO. Transportation distinction in different kinds of brick. Rates based upon uses to which commodity is put. .Use of commodity as an element of classification. Classification must be based upon distinctions from transportation standpoint. Cited: ICC 13-655 17-274 17-197 21-41 17-198 25-141 17-201 25-474 ' 17-202 26-129 17-207 28-293 219 GENTRY v. CHICAGO, ROCK ISLAND & PACIFIC RY. CO. Coal rates from Kansas points to Oklahoma points. Rate on slack coal should be lower than on lump coal. Distance as factor in rates. Value of commodity as factor in rates. Cited: ICC 13-222 cc 13-257 220 DESEL-BOETTCHER CO. v. KANSAS CITY SOUTHERN RY. CO. Rate on apples from Siloam Springs, Ark., to Texas points. Group rate not unlawful in theory. Group rates necessarily result in certain amount of discrimination. Cited: ICC 13-636 17-173 I. C. C. CITATIONS. Vol. 12 Page 223 DALLAS FREIGHT BUREAU v. G. C. & S. FE R. R. CO. Coal rates to Dallas, Tex. Standard of test to be applied in measuring reasonableness of rates. Per ton-mile comparisons as measures of reasonableness. Practice — Complaint should state whole case, including reparation claimed. Cited: ICC 14-519 17-491 lS-339 18-381 16-582 23-253 17-173 229 SOUTHERN GROCERY CO. v. GEORGIA NORTHERN RY. CO. Localities similarly situated entitled to equal rates. Discrimination in basing-point system of rate making. Liability of participating carriers for undue preference in joint rate. Cited: ICC 23-148 28-284 233 RAILROAD COMMISSION OF ARKANSAS v. ST. L. & N. A. R. R. CO. General financial condition and situation of railroad as factor in pas- senger rate. Cost of service as factor in rate. Cited: ICC 12-499 236 CHINA & JAPAN TRADING COMPANY v. GEORGIA R. R. CO. Rates on cotton goods from Southern mills via Pacific ports to Asiatic ports. Relative rates from New England points and Southern mills. Freight rates as a factor in foreign commerce. Water competition justifies disparity in rates. Presumption of unreasonableness on rates advanced by agreement of carriers. Cited: ICC 12-452 12-456 25-387 242 NOBLES BROS. GROCER COMPANY v. FT. W. & D. C. R. R. CO. Structure of Texas common-points rates from East. Procedure — Specific rates cannot be attacked under general averment. Cited: ICC 12-428 22-33 26-534 247 EDWARDS v. NASHVILLE, CHATTANOOGA & ST. L. R. R. CO. Discrimination between white and colored passengers. Segregation of white and colored passengers permissible: Colored passengers entitled to similar accommodations furnished white passengers. Cited: ICC 16-226 250 OMAHA COOPERAGE COMPANY v. N. C. & ST. L. R. R. CO. Division of through rate as test of reasonableness of local rate. Cited: ICC 16-SS4 26-122 Vol. 12 I. C. C. CITATIONS. Page 254 CITY COUNCIL OF ATCHISON v. MISSOURI PACIFIC RY. CO. Grain elevation service on Missouri River. Carrier's action unduly prejudicial to locality not served by it. Equalization of transportation privileges between cities similarly sit- uated. Practice — Sufficiency of grounds for rehearing. Cited: ICC 12-515 15-157 14-321 15-158 15-150 22-499 258 HOWARD MILLS COMPANY v. MISSOURI PACIFIC RY. CO. Relationship between rates on grain and grain products. Variations are not necessarily indicative of unreasonableness. Established relation of rates should be maintained. Cited: ICC 16-73 24-137 21-32 29-426 21-174 29-460 23-380 265 HOPE COTTON OIL COMPANY v. TEXAS & PACIFIC RY. CO. Through rate should not exceed sum of locals. Presumption of reasonableness in State-made rates. Cited: ICC 15-247 18-421 270 MAC RAE TERMINAL RAILWAY v. SOUTHERN RAILWAY CO. Right of one carrier to physical connection with another. Jurisdiction of Commission to order physical, connection between carriers. Cited: ICC 12-545 cc 211 U. S. 407. 12-548 277 In re CONSOLIDATION OF CARRIERS. Recommendations to prevent consolidations. Function of carrier should be confined to transportation. Carriers acquiring control of parallel and competing lines. Control of issuance of railway securities. Cited: 211 U. S. 407. 306 WHITE V. BALTIMORE & OHIO RAILROAD COMPANY. Rate on apples from Illinois points to New York. Estimated weights on certain standard packages. Cited: ICC 13-404 308 ROGERS & COMPANY v, PHILADELPHIA & READING RY. CO. Right of carrier to maintain embargo. Embargo constituting an unlawful discrimination. Commission's jurisdiction to forbid embargo discrimination. Commission's power to award reparation for damages resulting from embargo. Cited: ICC 17-371 168 Fed. 173. I. C. C. CITATIONS. Vol. 12 Page 312 MUSKOGEE COMMERCIAL CLUB v. M., K. & T. RY. CO. Discrimination in allowance of compression of cotton privilege in transit. Jurisdiction of Commission over compression of cotton privilege. Result, not methods, determine legality of practice. Carrier must not discriminate between localities in granting privileges. Cited: ICC 13-68 13-191 17-104 26-S93 324 MITCHELL v. ATCHISON, TOPEKA & SANTA FE RAILWAY CO. Rate making methods from wheat producing points in Southwest. Group rates not unlawful in theory. Cited: ICC 17-173 22-426 326 ENTERPRISE TRANSPORTATION CO. v. PENN. R. R. CO. Ferry company common carrier subject to Act. When ferry company not subject to Act. What constitutes a through route. Commission's power to establish through routes. Carriers participating in through route must file and concur in tariff. Cited: ICC 13-169 17-481 13-466 24-25 14-53 339 ROSWELL COMMERCIAL CLUB v. A., T. & S. FE RY. CO. • Rates from Eastern points to New Mexico points. Volume of traffic as factor in rate. Financial condition of carrier as factor in rate. Per ton-mile earnings as factor in reasonableness of rate. Cited: ICC 13-177 23-153 15-180 26-532 16-550 26-537 21-33 351 FARMERS, MERCHANTS & SHIPPERS CLUB OF KANSAS v. C. R. I. & P. RY. CO. Export rates on grain from Kansas to Galveston, Tex. Rate making methods from wheat-producing points in Southwest. Adjusting rates to restrict movement of traflSc. Rates established on mileage basis. Per ton-mile earnings as factor in grain rates. Cost of service as factor in rate. Financial condition of carrier as factor in rate. Consideration to be given State-made rates. Carrier not justified in carrying competitive traffic at less than cost. Commission hesitates to disturb established systems of rate-making. Cited: ICC 12-325 15-491 22-426 12-368 16-203 25-625 13-44 21-33 27-218 15-142 22-25 28-684 367 TERRITORY. OF OKLAHOMA v. C, R. I. & P. RY. CO. Export grain rates via Galveston from Oklahoma points. Cited: ICC 13-44 21-33 Vol. 12 I. C. C. CITATIONS. Page 375 COMMERCIAL & INDUSTRIAL ASSO. OF UNION SPRINGS v. C. of G. RY. CO. Discrimination between owners compressing cotton. Compression of cotton in transit as incident of transportation. Inquiry at single point insufficient to determine reasonableness of gen- eral practices. Cited: ICC 18-350 381 WARREN MANUFACTURING CO. v. SOUTHERN RAILWAY CO. Rate on cotton piece goods from Augusta, Ga., to New York. Concerted action of carriers as affecting reasonableness of rates. Presumptions in long-established rates. Violation of State laws as affecting reasonableness of rates. Commission's authority to enforce anti-trust law. Insurance and lighterage as factors in rail-ocean rate. Cited: ICC 12-391 22-296 388 RIVERSIDE MILLS v. SOUTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY. Rate on cotton waste from Augusta, Ga., to New York. Rate lower on by-products than oh commodity from which made. Value of commodity as factor in rate. Cost of service as factor in rate. Cited: ICC 22-295 398 RAILROAD COMMISSION OF OHIO v. H. V. R. R. CO. Basis for computing mine's distributive share of available cars. Discrimination in distribution of private foreign fuel and system fuel cars. , Commission's power to regulate distribution of empty cars. Legal status of Commission. Owner entitled to exclusive use of private cars. Coal company entitled to foreign fuel cars consigned to it. Cited: ICC 13-81 13-458 162 Fed. 812. 13-447 14-86 165 Fed. 127. 13-452 14-91 215 U. S. 463. 13-453 15-156 215 U. S. 496. 13-454 19-357 13-456 411 AMERICAN FRUIT UNION OF CINCINNATI v. C. N. O. & T. P. RY. Higher rate for special expedited train service. Higher rate cannot be demanded for quickened service unless rendered. Comparison between rates as measure of reasonableness. Cited: ICC 16-429 17-427 418 POOR GRAIN COMPANY v. C, B. & Q. R. R. CO. Grain rates from Nebraska points to California. Distinction between legal and lawful rate. Failure to pay or collect lawfully published rate is breach of law. Legal rate must be assessed notwithstanding misquotation of tariff. Shipper relying upon representations made by carrier's agent as to rate. Misquotation of tariff by carrier affords no ground for reparation. Higher rate assessed in consequence of shipper's routing. Carrier's duty to forward shipment via cheapest available route. Desirability of traffic not grounds for prohibitive rates. Cited: ICC 12-469 20-152 187 Fed. 491. 16-96 20-168 191 Fed. 710. 18-181 21-512 230 U. S. 199 19-296 22-352 20-66 23-517 I. C. C. CITATIONS. Vol. 12 Page 427 DALLAS FREIGHT BUREAU v. M., K. & T. RY. CO. History and theory of Texas common-point rates. Burden of proof on complainant to make prima facie case. What constitutes a prima facie case. Procedure when change involves extensive disturbance of rate structure. Comparison of rates as measure of reasonableness. Cited: ICC 13-635 16-484 14-281 20-255 15-67 24-20 15-166 26-529 438 PAPER MILLS COMPANY v. PENNSYLVANIA RAILROAD CO. Rate in Southern Classification Territory on paper bags and wrapping paper in mixed carloads. Reasonableness of carload rates on mixed carload shipments. Transportation conditions of benefit to few and corresponding injury to others. Comparison of classifications as measure of reasonableness. Division of traffic into classification territories described. Cited: ICC 13-28 13-30 22-584 451 ENTERPRISE MANUFACTURING CO. v. GEORGIA R. R. CO. Rate on cotton goods from Southern mills via Pacific ports to Asiatic ports. Natural advantages of location as factor in rates. Reasonableness of rate as aflfected by agreement of carriers to advance. Carrier competition as factor in rates. Higher rates in South than in North for similar distances. Cited: ICC 17-137 21-500 457 FARMERS WAREHOUSE CO. v. L. & N. R. R. CO. Salt rates from New Orleans to Cullman, Ala. Per ton-mile earnings as measure of reasonableness. Correction of rates at one point disturbing rates at other points. Reparation does not necessarily follow reduction of rate. Time from which right to reparation accrues. Cited: ICC 12-520 15-339 18-505 462 WIEMER & RICH v. CHICAGO & NORTHWESTERN RY. CO. Minimum weight applying on shipments of hay. Duty of carrier to establish minimum weight consistent with loading capacity of car. Discrimination between minimum weights required on shipments to dif- ferent points. Cited: ICC 14-597 14-599 14-602 Vol. 12 I. C. C. CITATIONS. Page 469 POOR GRAIN COMPANY v. C, B. & Q. R. R. CO. Force and legal effect of lawfully published rates. Duty of carrier to forward shipment via cheapest route. Carrier's duty to collect lawful rate notwithstanding misquotation. Cited: ICC 17-294 18-93 18-549 20-66 20-152 471 LOUP CREEK COLLIERY COMPANY v. VIRGINIAN RAILWAY. Circumstances under which Commission will establish through routes. Disparity in rates does not justify establishment of new through route. Relation between rates on one-line and two-line hauls. Cited: ICC 17-228 29-676 479 LANNING-HARRIS COAL & GRAIN CO. v. A., T. & S. FE RY. CO. Lawful to asssess switching charges for delivery to point on connect- ing line. Rate includes delivery only to points on carrier's own line. Cited: ICC 12-494 13-417 483 MISSOURI & KANSAS SHIPPERS ASSO. v. M., K. & T. RY. CO. Commission is essentially an administrative body. Procedure not to be hampered by technical considerations. Theoretical or paper rate, not used, cannot be made basis for reparation under Fourth Section. Cited: ICC 20-489 485 MORSE PRODUCE COMPANY v. C, M. & ST. P. RY. CO. Rate on butter and eggs Granite Falls to Chicago. Market competition as factor in rates. Cited: ICC 1S-33S 495 COMMERCIAL CLUB OF SANTA BARBARA v. S. P. CO. Terminal rates to Santa Barbara on west-bound transcontinental ship- ments. Water competition as factor in rates. Rates compelled by water competition not measure of reasonableness. No equalization of rates where dissimilar conditions obtain. Cited: ICC 12-506 17-411 19-332 24-17 498 COFFEYVILLE VITRIFIED BRICK & TILE CO. v. ST. L. & S. F. R. R. CO. Rate on brick Cherryvale, Kans., to Duncan, I. T. No general ruling that through rates must not exceed sum of locals. Cited: ICC 14-151 I. C. C. CITATIONS, Vol. 12 Page 507 CATTLE RAISERS ASSO. OF TEXAS v. C, B. & Q. R. R. CO. Switching charge to Union Stock Yards at Chicago. Undue discrimination between markets in terminal charge. Separation of terminal charge from line charge. Doctrine of res judicata as applied to proceedings before Commission. Court proceedings as bar to Commission's subsequent action. Reversed: 164 Fed. 638; 215 U. S. 98; 54 L. Ed. 112; 30 S. C. 66. Cited: ICC cc 7-513 cc 64 Fed. 992. cc 7-S55-a cc 1i Fed. 755. cc 10-83 cc 98 Fed. 173. cc 11-238 cc 11-296 cc 103 Fed. 249. 13-433 186 U. S. 320. 520 FARMERS WAREHOUSE CO. v. L. & N. R. R. CO. Reparation on shipments made subsequent to filing of complaint. Cited: 190 Fed. 622. 525 MORGAN v. MISSOURI, KANSAS & TEXAS RAILWAY CO. A specific through rate is lawful rate for through shipments. Through rate in excess of sum of locals. Rate compelled because of commercial or competitive conditions not measure of reasonableness. Reshipment from point in transit to defeat through rate. Agent of carrier cannot act for shipper in reconsignment. Cited: ICC 12-499 16-375 27-317 530 SOUTHWESTERN KANSAS FARMERS LEAGUE v. A., T. & S. FE RY. CO. Rates on coal from Colorado points. . Rate per ton-mile as measure of reasonableness. No bar to correction of unreasonable rate that other rates must be modified. Cited: ICC 14-519 18-278 535 HENNEPIN PAPER COMPANY v. NORTHERN PACIFIC RY. CO. Duty of carrier when no specific routing instructions are furnished. Duty of shipper to pay lawful rate via route shipment moved. Reparation — Measure of damages for misrouted shipment. Only the carrier misrouting shipment liable for damages. Cited: ICC 17-294 549 PACIFIC PURCHASING CO. v. C. & N. W. RY. CO. Carrier's duty under tariffs specifying certain minima for cars of cer- tain size. Carrier furnishing two smaller cars instead of one of capacity ordered. Liability of carriers under joint through rate. Cited: ICC 15-272 17-299 191 Fed. 709. 15-350 17-323 16-287 18-158 16-290 22-434 16-531 27-107 Vol. 13 I. C. C. CITATIONS. Page 553 CALIFORNIA FRUIT GROWERS EXCHANGE v. S. P. CO. Discrimination in distribution of empty cars. Apportionment of cars for fruit loading — "house rule" — "crop-holdingf rule". Basis for distribution of cars to coal mines. Cited: ICC 29-400 561 In re CAR SHORTAGE. Causes and remedies proposed. Theories for relief of congestion of traffic. Reconsignment privilege as cause of congestion. Warehousing and storage in cars as cause of congestion. Proposed car clearing house. Necessity for demurrage regulations. Reciprocal car demurrage. Carrier's duty to furnish adequate transportation facilities. Cited: ICC ■ T 14-543 18-27 , ' VOLUME 13. 1907—1908. MEMPHIS FREIGHT BUREAU v. FT. SMITH & WEST. R. R. CD. Rates on cotton seed from Oklahoma and Indian Territory to Memphis. Extent of carrier's duty to serve shippers. Carrier's duty to furnish continuous carriage over through route. Carrier offering inducements to industries to locate upon its line. Through rates in excess of sum of locals. Financial condition of carrier as factor in rates. Carrier's duty to furnish cars for through shipment. Cited: ICC 13-456 23-461 11 TRAFFIC BUREAU, ETC., OF ST. LOUIS v. M. P. RY. CO. Relative rates on grain between St. Louis and Kansas City to Little Rock, Ark. Equalization of market competitive conditions. Cited: ICC 16-195 20 CHICAGO & MILAVAUKEE ELECTRIC R. R. CO. v. I. C. R. R. CD- Commission's jurisdiction over electric railway engaged in interstate commerce. Limitation of Commission's right to establish through routes. Through routes via electric_ and steam railroads. Cited: 191 Fed. 46. ICC 13-250 17-243 26-349 13-252 19-10 27-412 13-466 20-491 27-499 15-254 24-25 I. C. C. CITATIONS. Vol. 13 Page 31 BANNER MILLING COMPANY v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. R. CO. Relative rates on grain and grain products to New York 'and New Eng- land points. Lake-and-rail rates on grain products . Reasonableness of rate determined by its relation to other rates. Equalization of market competitive conditions. Impairment of business investment by changes in rate. Cited: ICC 13-37 14-399 13-38 14-400 13-39 19-128 13-40 24-104 24-188 37 THORTON & CHESTER MILLING CO. v. D., L. & W. R. R. CO. Decision in Banner Milling Co. v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. R. Co., supra, applied. Cited: ICC 14-399 38 WASHBURN-CROSBY COMPANY v. ERIE RAILROAD CO. Decision in Banner Milling Co. v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. R. Co., supra, applied. Cited: ICC 14-399 39 WASHBURN-CROSBY COMPANY v. LEHIGH VALLEY R. R. CO. Decision in Banner Milling Co. v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. R. Co., supra, applied. Cited: ICC 14-399 46 OCHELTREE GRAIN COMPANY v. ST. L. & S. F. R. R. CO. Presumptions arising from long continuance of prior lower rate. Presumptions arising from reduction of higher rate to its former lower basis. Advances in rates require explanation. Cited: ICC 18-580 19-78 48 RELIANCE TEXTILE & DYE WORKS v. SOUTHERN RY. CO. Rate on cotton piece goods from Southern points. Commodity competition as factor in rates. Jurisdiction of Commission where discrimination results from combina- tion of state and interstate rates. Cited: ICC 23-48 56 - BOVAIRD SUPPLY COMPANY v. A., T. & S. FE RY. CO. Dissimilar circumstances as justifying lower rate for longer haul. Only controlling competition justifies lower rate to distant point than to intermediate. Competition between commodities as creating similarity of conditions between points. Locality's natural advantage of location as factor in rates. Rate not permitting disadvantageous competition, not prejudicial. Erroneous application of unlawful rate not evidence of unreasonableness. System of group rating will not be disturbed without proof of tangible injury. Carrier's duty to collect undercharge in rate. Cited: ICC 15-536 17-173 Vol. 13 I. C. C. CITATIONS. Page 69 POWHATTAN COAL & COKE CO. v. NORFOLK & WEST. RY. CO. System of rating employed in distribution of coke cars. • Discrimination in' distribution of cars. Carrier's duty to make equal distribution of cars. "Capacity basis" of car distribution. Cited: ICC 13-456 14-94 19-361 25-291 87 PITTSBURG PLATE GLASS CO. v. P. C, C. & ST. L. RY. CO. Commission's jurisdiction over export and import commerce. Dissimilar circumstances as affecting rate alleged to be discriminative. Disparity in rates on domestic and import traffic not per se unlawful. Carrier and market competition as factors in rate. Only undue and unreasonable discriminations are unlawful. Circumstances beyond seaboard as factor in reasonableness of inland rate. "Like service" defined with respect to export and domestic traffic. Competition compelled rates not measure of reasonableness. Cited: ICC 15-439 15-442 20-434 20-444 23-3SS 115 ROMONA COLITIC STONE COMPANY v. VANDALIA R. R. CO. Correct manner of ascertainment of weight of shipments. Purported weights upon billing disapproved. Manner of ascertaining weight of shipment is practice within purview of Act. Cited: ICC 13-569 13-570 19-572 128 MINNEAPOLIS THRESHING MACHINE CO. v. C. R. I. & P. RY. CO. Application of reduced rate on returned movement of machinery. Cited: ICC 14-456 152 NORTH BROS. v. ST. LOUIS & SAN FRANCISCO R. R. CO. Presumptions arising from restoration of prior lower rate. Cited: ICC 16-98 16-102 154 LANNING-HARRIS COAL & GRAIN COMPANY v. M. P. RY. CO. Legal rate between two points defined. Where delivery is taken at distributing point, service beyond is local. Through rate should not exceed sum of locals. Cited: ICC 13-346 14-112 14-334 26-173 171 GENTRY v. ATCHISON, TOPEKA & SANTA FE RAILWAY CO. Establishment of through route between Ashland, Tex., and Nash, Okla. Cited: ICC 14-372 I. C. C. CITATIONS. Vol. 13 Page 173 PECOS MERCANTILE COMPANY v. A., T. & S. FE RY. CO. Rates to Pecos, Tex., from Eastern points. Fourth Section — Carrier competition justifies lower rate to distant point. -' Cited: ICC 15-179 16-550 187 CHICKASAW COMPRESS COMPANY v. G. C. & S. FE RY. CO. Discrimination in carrying cotton for compression. Rule with respect to compression privileges. Carrier's duty to adjust rates, regulations and practices. Commission will not require free out-of-line haul. Cited: ICC 15-496 192 COOMES & McGRAW v. C, M. & ST. P. RY. CO. Demurrage charges cannot be assessed unless shipper responsible for delay. Demurrage charges accruing pending dispute as to rate. Duty of carrier and shipper to observe lawfully established rate. Distinction between legal and lawful rate. Reparation — Granting a matter of discretion with Commission. Through rate should not exceed combination of locals. Cited: ICC 16-96 20-559 28-659 214 HAINES V. CHICAGO. ROCK ISLAND & PACIFIC RY. CO. Commission no authority to enforce conditions found in Federal or other charters. Power of Commission to enforce compliance with conditions subsequent. Act not applicable to territory after admission as state. Cited: ICC cc 13-219 13-223 cc 13-220 13-224 13-221 cc 13-257 13-222 225 MERCHANTS TRAFFIC ASSO. v. N. Y., N. H. & H. R. R. CO. Rate on cotton piece goods New England points to Denver. Water competition as element in Pacific coast rates. Power of Commission to establish through rates. Water competition compelled rates not measure of reasonableness. Divisions of rate are of no concern to the public. Practice — No costs are chargeable by Commission. Procedure — No order can be made when all interested parties are not before Commission. Procedure where establishment of through route is sought. .Cited: ICC 21-417 240 AMARILLO GAS COMPANY v. A.. T. & S. FE RY. CO. Coke rate from Colorado points to Amarillo, Tex. Relationship between coal and coke rates. Rate per ton-mile as measure of reasonableness. Cited: ICC 27-148 Vol. 13 I. C. C. CITATIONS. Page 243 MERCHANTS FREIGHT BUREAU OF LITTLE ROCK v. M. V. R. R. CO. Extent of carrier's obligation to transport property tendered. Limitation of carrier's right to foster industries on its own line. Carrier's duty to establish through routes. Conditions rendering established through route unreasonable. Cited: ICC 17-481. 26-234 2S0 CEDAR RAPIDS & IOWA CITY RY. & LIGHT CO. v. C. & N. W. RY. Determination of what constitutes satisfactory through route. Through route and rates established via electric and steam lines. Cited: ICC 20-492 26-234 27-499 2S8 WYMAN PARTRIDGE & CO. v. BOSTON & MAINE R. R. CO. Rates to Twin Cities as aflfected by water competition. Bills of lading contracting for carrier's responsibility for loss by perils of sea. Inclusion of cost of marine insurance in rates. Cited: ICC 15-577 19-SSl 27-642 266 COSMOPOLITAN SHIPPING CO. v. HAMBURG-AMERICAN PACKET CO. Commission's jurisdiction over foreign commerce. Jurisdiction in re pooling of freight by water carriers. Relative rates between rail and water carriers. Commission's jurisdiction over water carriers. Interchange of traffic between railroads and steamship lines. Publication of export and import rates. Evidence — Report of congressional committees. Practice — Question of jurisdiction raised by demurrer. Cited: ICC 13-310 14-345 13-314 24-74 13-315 25-217 283 MERCHANTS TRAFFIC ASSOCIATION v. A., T. & S. FE RY. CO. Rates on cameras and motorcycles St. Louis to Denver. Articles analogous from transportation standpoint entitled to similar rating. Cited: ICC 18-427 25-135 26-128 286 LARSEN CANNING CO. v. CHICAGO & NORTHWESTERN RY. CO. Carrier must respect shipper's routing although higher rate results. Cited: ICC 14-292 288 COMMERCIAL CLUB OF DULUTH v. N. P. RY. CO. Discrirriination in allowance of free storage privilege at Duluth and Superior. Practice in general use will not be condemned, when. Practice — All interested carriers must be joined as defendants. Cited: ICC 27-658 I. C. C. CITATIONS. Vol. 13 Page ^95 FOREST CITY FREIGHT BUREAU v. A., T. & S. FE RY. CO. Classification of multigraphs. Use to which commodity is put as factor in classification. Cited: ICC 24-300 25-531 26-372 298 FIELD v. SOUTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY. Carrier's right to issue party tickets. Authority of Commission to require reduced passenger transportation. Cited: ICC 18-63 28-129 28-324 319 LINCOLN COMMERCIAL CLUB v. C, R. I. & P, RY. CO. DiflFerentials in rates between Lincoln and Omaha. Rate per ton-mile as measure of reasonableness. Competition between cities as factor in rates. Cited: ICC 16-582 21-79 18-532 24-178 19-334 27-305 19-419 329 BAER BROS. MERCANTILE CO. v. MISSOURI PACIFIC RY. CO. State carrier participating in through movement of traffic is subject to Act. Intrastate rate being part of through charge does not affect interstate character of traffic. Factors constituting arrangement for through and continuous carriage. Reparation — Protest not prerequisite to recovery. Reversed: 187 Fed. 485. Sustained: 233 U. S. 479; 58 L. Ed. 1055; 34 S. C. 641; 195 Fed. 968; 200 Fed. 614; 209 Fed. 577. Cited: ICC 14-198 15-595 cc 17-226 cc 17-229 18-390 342 HYDRAULIC PRESS BRICK COMPANY v. ST, L. & S. F. R. R. CO. Alternative application of rates authorized in tariffs condemned. Application of competition rule to alleged preference. Carrier cannot be compelled to meet competition. Right of carrier to handle traffic via most profitable route. Cited: ICC 25-148 349 NEBRASKA STATE RAILWAY COMMISSION v. U. P. R. R. CO. Blanket rate on coal to points in Nebraska. Market competition as factor in rates. Distance as a factor in rates. Cited: ICC 14-518 16-392 19-21 23-122 26-650 Vol. 13 I. C. C. CITATIONS. Page 357 DETROIT CHEMICAL WORKS v. NORTHERN CENTRAL RY. COl Rate on imported iron pyrite from Baltimore to Detroit. Comparison of rates per ton-mile as measure of reasonableness. Relative rates between competing localities. Presumptions arising from continuance of prior rate. Cited: ICC 13-363 16-321 363 DETROIT CHEMICAL WORKS v. ERIE RAILROAD CO. Rate on imported iron pyrite New York to Detroit. Relative rates between competing localities. Cited: ICC 16-320 366 HUSSEY v. CHICAGO, ROCK ISLAND & PACIFIC RAILWAY COl Commission's power to grant redress for exaction of unreasonable charges. No reparation unless prior rate found unreasonable. Commission can make no lawful order in absence of jurisdiction. Territorial transportation as subject to Act. Cited: ICC 13-474 378 In re DEMURRAGE ON PRIVATELY OWNED TANK CARS. Privately owned cars not subject to demurrage when on privately owned tracks. Such cars subject to demurrage when on carrier's tracks. Carrier's duty to furnish adequate equipment. Cited: ICC 15-484 383 GOFF-KIRBY COAL CQ. v. BESSEMER & LAKE ERIE R. R. CO. Rate on bituminous coal applicable to cannel coal. Cited: ICC 15-553 25-244 388 JOHNSON & LARIMER DRY GOODS CO. v. A. T. & S. FE RY. CO. Rates on cotton piece goods from Atlantic seaboard to Wichita via Galveston. Relationship of freight rate to selling price of commodity. Fourth Section — Competition relieves carrier from provisions of. Market competition as factor in rate. Cost of service as element in rate. Cited: ICC 13-609 15-540 405 MASURITE EXPLOSIVE COMPANY v. P. & L. E. R. R. CO. Relative rates on masurite and dynamite. Risk of transportation as factor in rate. Cited: ICC 16-530 21-90 26-310 I. C. C. CITATIONS. Vol. 13 Page 411 MISSOURI& KANSAS SHIPPERS ASSO. v. A. T. & S. FE RY. CO. An association cannot make general claim for reparation on behalf of its members. Pleading — Complaint against carrier must be specific. Pleading— Complaint must be specific to stop running of statute of .limitations. Carrier entitled to prompt presentation of claims. Evidence — Sufficiency of way-bill reference. Cited: ICC 18-68 183 Fed. 934. 21-570 27-35 27-307 29-394 418 CATTLE RAISERS ASSO. OF TEXAS v. M. K. & T. RY. CO. Rates on live stock from Southwestern points to Chicago. Reasonableness of switching charge at Chicago Live Stock Yards. Prosperity of industry as factor in rate. Value of commodity as factor in rate. Cost of service as element in rates. Carrier's right to fair return on investment. Nature of testimony in proceedings before Commission. Sustained: 164 Fed. 645. Cited: ICC 25-64 451 TRAER v. CHICAGO & ALTON RAILROAD COMPANY. Discrimination in distribution of coal cars. System of car distribution based on daily tonnage ratings. Carrier's duty with respect to distribution of empty cars. Right of carrier to make exclusive contracts for fuel coal. No unjust discrimination in distribution of company fuel cars. Basis for distribution of foreign fuel and privately owned cars. Reversed: 173 Fed. 930. Sustained: 215 U. S. 452; 54 L. Ed. 280; 30 S. C. 155. Cited: ICC 19-358 215 U. S. 464. 23-461 230 U.S. 312. 25-297 460 CARDIFF COAL COMPANY v. C, M. & ST. P. RY. CO. Discrimination in establishment of through routes and joint rates. Shipper's right to reasonable rates. Carrier cannot restrict or limit extent of competition between com- munities. Adjustment of rates to exclude competition. Rates to protect long-haul traffic. Restricting traffic to movement between points on carrier's own line. Probable loss of revenue does not justify carrier in refusing through routes. . Shipper cannot demand more than one reasonable through route. Interchange of terminal facilities by carriers. Power of Commission to establish through routes. Cited: ICC 13-471 17-481 26-58 15-463 17-547 27-70 15-620 19-10 29-614 15-625 24-615 29-677 16-511 25-295 Vol. 13 I. C. C. CITATIONS. Page 475 KINDEL v. ADAMS EXPRESS COMPANY. Express rates to and from Denver. Factors to be considered in determining reasonableness of express rates. Method of constructing express rates. Discrimination in express rates between competing" jobbing centers. Relation between freight and express rates. Commission's jurisdiction over express rates. Cited: ICC 16-32 16-183 17-417 501 FRYE & BRUHN v. NORTHERN PACIFIC RAILWAY CO. Rate on live hogs from Eastern points to Seattle. Relation of rates between eastbound and westbound traffic. Single and double-deck carload ratings on live stock. Absorption of branch line charges on long-haul traffic. Reparation for speculative damages not allowed. Evidence — Presumptions arising from payment of rebates. Evidence — Character of, required to establish unreasonableness of rates. Cited: ICC 24-21 513 MORTI v. CHICAGO, MILWAUKEE & ST. PAUL. RAILWAY CO. Catttle rates Leon, Kans., to Chicago. Practice — Reduction of rate attacked before or after complaint is filed. Practice — Effect of non-joinder of necessary parties defendant. Cited: ICC 18-413 516 BANNON v. SOUTHERN EXPRESS COMPANY. Express rates on fish from Haines City, Fla., to St. Louis. Estimated weight as basis for computing charges. Correction of irregularities cannot be made basis for reparation. Re-icing charge must be covered by tariff. Cited: ICC 18-419 542 BENTON TRANSIT CO. v. BENTON HARBOR-ST. JOE RY & LIGHT COMPANY. Through routes via lake-and-rail lines. Commission's jurisdiction over state rail carrier after withdrawal of in- terstate lake-and-rail rates. Factors constituting satisfactory through route. Practice — Hearings will not be delayed on technical objections. Cited: ICC 27-499 550 In re RELEASED RATES. Validity of stipulation limiting liability. Carrier's liability under bill of lading specifying values. Assumption of risk of loss by shipper. Declared and invoiced values. Use of released rates to escape liability for negligence." Rates conditioned upon stipulation in bill of ladings as to loss. Graduation of rates in accordance with value of commodity. Good faith and intention necessary element in use of released rates. Misleading and unreasonable regulations in bill of lading. Cited: ICC 19-520 223 U. S. 490. 21-12 233 U. S. 141. 25-608 I. C. C. CITATIONS. Vol. 13 Page 573 LEONARD y: KANSAS CITY SOUTHERN RAILWAY CO. Status of switching charges in interstate movement of traffic. When carrier performing service within single state is subject to Act. Carrier subject to Act although without interstate traffic arrangements. Character of and not arrangement for is test of jurisdiction. Cited: ICC 24-205 601 RANDOLPH LUMBER CO. v. SEABOARD AIR LINE RAILWAY. Through charge should be less than sum of locals. Fourth Section — Competition creates dissimilarity of conditions. Cited: ICC 25-195 620 TOPEKA BANANA DEALERS ASSO. v. ST. L. & S. F. R. R. CO. Rates on fruit from New Orleans and Mobile to Northern points. Assessment of freight charges on purported weights. Allowance for shrinkage in weights of shipments while in transit. Point-of-origin weights more accurate than point-of-destination weights. Competition may require different minima weights on same article. Comparison of rates on other commodities as test of reasonableness. Per ton-mile earnings as measure of reasonableness. Fourth Section not violated unless traffic moves through intermediate point. Cited: ICC 15-191 16-152 17-173 19-23 27-429 633 RHINELANDER PAPER CO. v. NORTHERN PACIFIC RY. CO. Competition compelled rates are not measure of reasonableness. Comparison of rates in different sections of country in testing reason- ableness of rates. Contract to maintain certain basis of rates. Distance not an important factor in group rates. Discrimination unavoidable "in group rates. Cited: ICC 26-105 638 PAYNE-GARDNER COMPANY v. L. & N. R. R. CO. Rates permitting competition between trade centers. Recognition of town as trade center does not justify undue preference against smaller towns. Competition as justifying disparity in rates. Water competition as factor in rates. Cited: ICC 14-339 18-503 24-240 651 FT. SMITH TRAFFIC BUREAU v. ST. L. & S. F. R. R. CO. Carrier's legal duty to transport. Classification must be based on distinction from transportation stand- point. Rates based on use to which commodity is put. Considerations in determination of reasonableness of rates. Cited: ICC 25-474 25-647 Vol. 14 I. C. C. CITATIONS. Page 657 THOMPSON LUMBER CO. v. ILLINOIS CENTRAL R. R. CO. Lumber rates from Memphis to New Orleans. Factors to be considered in determining reasonableness of rate. Terminal expense as factor in rate. Laches of complainant as bar to right of reparation. Reparation — Rate must be found unreasonable prior to date of complaint. Reversed: 193 Fed. 682. Cited: ICC 13-678 27-474 cc 190 Fed. 656. 13-680 27-516 225 U. S. 243. 18-83 28-217 668 BURGESS v. TRANSCONTINENTAL FREIGHT BUREAU. Basis for rates on lumber from Pacific coast points. Water competition as factor in rates. Volume of traffic as element in rate. Competition compelled rates not measures of reasonableness. Rate higher in one direction than in opposite, between same points. Presumptions arising from long continuance of prior rate. Practice — Reparation from date of filing complaint. Measure of damages in reparation award. Increasing price of commodity by amount of increased freight charges does not afifect right to reparation. Reversed: 190 Fed. 659; 193 Fed. 678. Cited: ICC 17-251 21-398 230 U. S. 241. 17-288 21-417 18-233 22-388 18-303 27-38 VOLUME 14. 1908. OREGON & WASHINGTON LUMBER MANFGRS. ASSO. v. UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY. Lumber rates from North Pacific coast points. Rates restricting zone of market. Conditions of transportation entitling commodity to low rating. Prosperity of shipper as factor in rates. Carrier's financial condition as factor in rates. Invested financial interests as element in reasonableness of rate. Presumptions arising from long-maintained rates. Density of traffic as factor in rates. Cost of service as factor in rates. Carrier cannot be required to meet competition. Sustained: 222 U. S. 541; 56 L. Ed. 308. Cited: ICC 14-40 21-395 27-633 165 Fed. 13. 14-48 24-93 29-475 193 Fed. 926. 14-50 26-336 16-465 26-338 21-297 I. C. C. CITATIONS. I Vol. 14 ! piii '; \ "lyr- A. // 23 PACIFIC COAST LUMBER MANFGRS. ASSO. v. N. P.. RY. CO. > /7 Lumber rates from Pacific Northwest points. v ', .,', ,' ./ Presumptions arising from long-maintained prior rates. •-^.^ . ■ Disturbance of established business conditions as factor in determining reasonableness of rates. Carrier's right to earn reasonable return on investment. Per ton-mile earnings as measure of reasonableness. Reasonableness of rates as dependent on character of traffic. Factors determining right of commodity to low rating. Financial condition of carrier as factor in rates. Sustained: 222 U. S. 541; 56 L. Ed. 308. Cited: ICC 14-8 16-167 24-93 165 Fed. 1. 14-20 16-465 26-336 193 Fed. 926. 14-48 21-297 27-633 14-408 21-395 29-475 41 POTLATCH LUMBER CO. v. NORTHERN PACIFIC RY. CO. Lumber rates from Washington, Idaho and Oregon points. Diflerentials between Pacific Coast and intermediate points. Grouping of lumber producing points. Rates restricting zone of market. Sustained: 222 U. S. 541; 56 L. Ed. 308. Cited: ICC 14-20 16-449 27-633 cc 157 Fed. 588. 14-40 16-465 193 Fed. 926. 16-164 24-93 16-174 26-336 51 PACIFIC COAST LUMBER MANFGRS. ASSO. v. N. P. RY. CO. Limitation on power of Commission to establish through routes. Public interest as measure of reasonableness of rates and routes. Canadian competition as factor in rates. Distance as factor in reasonable route. Carrier's duty to establish reasonable through routes. Sustained: 222 U. S. 541; 56 L. Ed. 308. Cited: ICC 14-20 16-302 24-93 165 Fed. 1. 14-48 16-468 26-336 14-50 21-297 27-633 15-494 21-395 29-475 61 WESTERN OREGON LUMBER MANFGRS. ASSO. v. S. P. CO. Lumber rates from Willamette Valley to San Francisco. Past rate no estoppel against an advance in rates. Earnings of carrier as measure of reasonableness of rate. Market competition as factor in rate. Impairment of business conditions as factor in reasonableness of ad- vanced rate. Right of public to depend on continuance of rate. Sustained: 177 Fed. 963. Reversed: 219 U. S. 433; 55 L. Ed. 283; 31 S. C. 288. Cited: ICC 14-20 197 Fed. 168. 15-128 cc 215 U. S. 226. 21-389 Vol. 14 I. C. C. CITATIONS^ Page 75 RICE V. GEORGIA RAILROAD COMPANY. Reasonableness of reweighing regulations. Actual weight of shipment to govern in assessment of charges. Per ton-mile earnings as factor in coal rates. Fourth Section — Phj'sical conditions of transportation creating dissim- ilarity of circumstances. Fourth Section — Water competition creating dissimilar conditions. Cited: ICC 21-632 22-236 82 PUEBLO TRANSPORTATION ASSO. v. SOUTHERN PACIFIC CO. Lawfully published rate defined. Condemnation of rate essential prerequisite to reparation. No reparation for carrier's neglect to post tariffs. Cited: 187 Fed. 491. 230 U. S. 199. 86 RAIL & RIVER COAL CO. v. BALTIMORE & OHIO R. R. CO. Mine rating system in distribution of empty cars. Distribution of private and foreign railway fuel cars. Commission's jurisdiction over distribution of cars. Interpretation of term "practices" as used in Act. Factors to be considered in establishing reasonable rule for distribution of cars. Right of owner of several mines to pool his percentage of cars. 14-421 cc 215. U. S. 216. 19-358 215 U. S. 495. 25-291 98 GUMP V. BALTIMORE & OHIO RAILROAD CO. Fourth Section — Competition creates dissimilarity of conditions. Divisions do not determine reasonableness of through rate. Prosperity of shipper as factor in rates. Cited: ICC 14-339 24-374 26-163 109 OSHKOSH LOGGING TOOL COMPANY v. C. & N. W. RY. CO. Rates from Central Freight Association territory to points in Fox River Valley, Wis. Through rates exceeding sum of locals. Practice — Sufficiency of allegations of complaint to state cause of action. Cited: ICC 14-114 16-421 119 VICTOR FUEL COMPANY v. A. T. & S. FE RY. CO. Carrier cannot make allowances for car-door boards without tariff provision. Agreement between carrier and shipper cannot alter requirements of Act Cited: 230 U. S. 261. 121 OTTUMWA BRIDGE COMPANY v. C, M. & ST. P. RY. CO. Equalizing interior fabricating plants with those at source of unfabri- cated product. Damage must be shown to warrant an award of reparation. Higher rate via one line than via another as evidence of unreasonableness. Voluntary reduction of rate as evidence of unreasonableness of prior rate Cited: ICC 15-49 15-51 18-198 29-75 I. C. C. CITATIONS. Vol. 14 Page 127 GEORGE'S CREEK BASIN COAL CO. v. B. & O. R. R. CO. Coal rates from George's Creek region in Maryland. Diflferential rates on small-vein and big-vein coal. Market competition as controlling factor in rates. Shipper's right to rate permitting of opportunity to market commodity. Locality's natural advantage of location as factor in rate Cited: ICC 17-150 174 Fed. 692. • 18-47 150 MONTGOMERY FREIGHT BUREAU v. W. RY. OF ALABAMA. Reasonableness of carload rates on fertilizer. Reconsignment of shipment on basis of locals to defeat higher through rate. State-niade rates as measure of reasonableness. Through rate should not exceed sum of locals. Cited: ICC 14-374 27-236 154 WHOLESALE LUMBER DEALERS ASSO. v. A. C. L. R: R. CO. Allowances for dunnage. Carrier not required to provide stakes for lumber shipments. Carrier not required to load and unload carload shipments. Policy of Commission respecting established usages of carrier. Cited: ICC 15-195 232 U. S. 216. 25-495 26-251 170 WILSON PRODUCE CO. v. PENNSYLVANIA RAILROAD CO. Exaction of storage charges in addition to regular demurrage charges at Pittsburgh. Necessity for demurrage regulations. Track storage and demurrage charges considered. State statute fixing terminal charges not controlling as to interstate commerce. Commission's duty to regulate terminal charges. Value of service as factor in charges. Cited: ICC 14-186 21-458 188 Fed. 885. 16-117 25-315 227 U. S. 269. 18-27 26-413 18-33 28-607 178 NEW YORK HAY EXCHANGE ASSO. v. PENN. R. R. CO. Reasonableness of track storage and demurrage charges as assessed at New York City. Assessment of track storage charges in addition to demurrage. Demurrage charges cannot be assessed unless shipper or consignee at fault for delay. Operation of free time allowance under demurrage rules Cost of service as factor in storage charges. Conditions warranting discrimination between localities in storage charges. Charges upon an ascending scale justified. Cited: ICC 17-123 25-315 20-559 -26-414 21-177 28-607 Vol. 14 I. C. C. CITATIONS. Page 191 RAHWAY VALLETY RAILWAY COMPANY v. D. L. & W. R. R. CO. Limitation to right of shipper or lateral line to switch connection with another line. Commission has not plenary discretion in re switch connections. All branch roads not necessarily entitled to joint rates. Reversed: 166 Fed. 498; 216 U. S. 531; 54 L. Ed. 605; 30 S. C. 415. 195 SOUTHERN PINE LUMBER CO. v. SOUTHERN RAILWAY CO. Duty of carrier to collect and shipper to pay lawful charge. Protest against payment not prerequisite to recovery of damages. Reparation proceedings correspond to tort action at law. Cited: ICC 14-205 188 Fed. 861. 199 NICOLA, STONjE & MYERS COMPANY v. L. & N. R. R. CO. Power of Commission to award damages for exaction of unreasona- ble rates. To whom reparation will be awarded. Publication of rate not conclusive as to its reasonableness. Protest against payment not prerequisite to recovery of damages. Right to reparation not confined to shipments made by parties to former proceedings. Right to reparation extends to all shipments charged for on basis previ- ously declared unlawful. Commission must find rate unreasonable before reparation can be awarded. Statute of limitations in damage claims. Joint and several liability of carriers for exaction of unreasonable rate. Evidence — Sufficiency of way-bill reference. Cited: ICC 17-10 15-170 17-253 183 Fed. 934. 15-172 17-590 187 Fed. 879. 15-235 19-21 190 Fed. 664. 15-237 21-46 191 Fed. 711. 15-240 21-51 15-595 25-677 15-597 27-323 210 MARSHALL OIL CO. v. CHICAGO & NORTHWESTERN RY. CO. Rates on petroleum and products from Mason City to Minnesota points. Jurisdiction of Commission in re unreasonable rates. Considerations to be given to decisions of State railway commissions. Considerations to be given to general rate territory in reducing par- ticular rate. Cited: ICC 17-147 216 OKLAHOMA & ARKANSAS COAL TRAFFIC BUREAU v. C, R. I. & P. RY. CO. Coal rates from Oklahoma-Arkansas coal fields. Comparison of rates as measure of reasonableness. Railroad competition as factor in rates. Rate per ton-mile as factor in rate. Cited: ICC 14-518 16-582 I. C. C. CITATIONS. Vol. 14 Page -237 GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. R. CO. Allowances to industrial railways. Extent of carrier's obligation as to receipt and delivery of carload shipments. Distinction between plant facility and transportation service. Carrier can only compensate shipper for performing transportation service. Extent of carrier's duty in re service in connection with plant railway. 'Carrier cannot assume burden or grant privilege not covered by tariff. Commission has no authority to enforce specific performance of con- tracts. Cited: ICC 14-246 17-110 22-546 209 Fed. 243 14-247 18-313 24-29 209 Fed. 257. 14-249 20-58 27-360 231 U.S. 293. 14-628 20-4SS 28-120 234 U. S. 23, 17-107 21-304 29-228 29-239 . 234 U. S. 307. 246 SOLVAY PROCESS COMPANY v, D. L. & W. R. R. CO. Shipper not entitled to allowance for performing plant facility service. Distinction between plant facility and transportation service. Cited: ICC 14-628 20-455 22-546 209 Fed. 243. 17-107 21-304 24-29 209 Fed. 257. 17-110 21-315 28-120 234 U. S. 23. 18-313 21-320 29-229 250 EICHENBERG v. SOUTHERN PACIFIC COMPANY. Discrimination in wharfage privileges at Galveston. Wharfage company subject to provisions of Act Agreement of terminal company as to dock facilities. Carrier may give undue preference by lease of property. Carrier's discrimination through medium of agency. Substance not form of relationship determines liability. Sustained: 166 Fed. 134; 219 U. S. 498; SS L. Ed. 310; 31 S. C. 279. Cited: ICC 17-164 17-372 18-457 28-584 .272 NATIONAL PETROLEUM ASSO. v. ANN ARBOR R. R. CO. Equalization of basis of rate structure between Central Freight Associa- tion and Trunk Line territories on petroleum. Classification of petroleum and its products. Relationship between carload and less-than-carload shipments. Practice — An omnibus complaint will not be entertained. Evidence — Degree of sufficiency required to sustain petition. Practice — Prayer for relief may be too broad. Cited: ICC 20-651 24-19 .287 NATIONAL PETROLEUM ASSO. v. C. M. & ST. P. RY. CO. Oil rates Chicago and Peoria to Missouri River points. Comparison of per ton-mile revenue as measure of reasonableness. Cited: ICC 28-708 Vol. 14 I. C. C. CITATIONS. Page 294 GREATER DES MOINES COMMITTEE v. C. G. W. RY. CO. Lumber from Southern producing territory to Des Moines. Des Moines rates should not exceed Omaha rates. Locality's natural advantage of location as factor in rate. Fourth Section — Competition justifying disparity in rates. "Basing point" not entitled to preferential rates. Cited: ICC 18-532 19-334 19-419 24-178 27-305 299 BURNHAM HANNA HUNGER DRY GOODS CO. v. C. R. I. &P- RY. CO. Rates to Missouri River points from Atlantic Seaboard territory. History of rates to Twin Cities. Canadian competition as factor in rates. Water competition as factor in Twin Cities rates. Commission does not hesitate to right a wrong because similar wrongs exist elsewhere. Through charge should not exceed sum of intermediate rates. Separate factors considered in testing reasonableness of through rate. Relation of present and past rates as test of reasonableness. Principles governing establishment of rate structure. Rate adjustment with view to commercial interests involved. Locality's natural advantage of location as factor in rate. Cost of service as element in rate. Reversed: 171 Fed. 680. Sustained: 218 U. S. 88; 54 L. Ed. 946; 30 S. C. 651. Cited: ICC ; 14-339 22-181 27-28 cc 218 U. S. 113. 15-498 22-532 27-650 15-559 23-196 28-66 16-56 24-20 28-83 17-173 24-126 28-211 18-81 24-579 28-233 20-141 25-135 28-309 21-546 25-195 29-385 29-604 315 In re ALLOWANCES TO ELEVATORS BY U. P. R. R. CO. Allowances for commercial elevation of grain illegal. Bulk grain storage as part of transportation service. Unlawful advantage may be enjoyed in ways not involving payment of rebates. Reversed: 176 Fed. 409. Modified: 222 U. S. 42; 56 L. Ed. 83; 32 S. C. 22. Cited: ICC cc 10-309 cc 15-92 17-47 cc 178 Fed. 226. cc 12-85 15-96 17-104 202 Fed. 848. 13-498 15-147 17-107 204 Fed. 478. cc 14-318 15-150 18-366 cc 222 U.S. 215. 14-323 15-151 22-500 14-332 15-159 24-198 28-492 I. C. C. CITATIONS. Vol. 14 Page 317 TRAFFIC BUREAU OF ST. LOUIS v. C. B. & Q. R. R. CO. Allowance for grain elevation service. Discrimination in restricting use of privilege to few shippers. Discrimination between cities in granting elevation allowances. Bulk grain storage as part of transportation service. Competition as affecting elevation allowances. Commission's jurisdiction in re allowances paid shippers. Reversed: 176 Fed. 409. Modified: 222 U. S. 42; 56 L. Ed. 83; 32 S. C. 22. Cited: ICC cc 178 Fed. 226. cc 10-309 cc lS-93 18-366 202 Fed. 848. cc 12-86 16-592 22-497 204 Fed. 478. cc 14-315 17-104 24-198 cc 222 U. S. 215. cc 14-510 17-107 14-551 340 ULLMAN v. ADAMS EXPRESS COMPANY. Rate on raw furs from St. Paul to New York. Carriers must publish inland export rates. Relative express rates between raw material and finished product. Value of commodity as factor in express rates. Cited: ICC 14-585 14-587 19-354 346 In re BILLS OF LADING. Commission approves uniform bill of lading. Jurisdiction of Commission in re bills of lading. Cited: ICC 21-11 29-417 356 HECKER-JONES-JEWELL MILLING CO. v. B. & O. R. R. CO. Milling-in-transit and export grain and flour rates to New York. Parity between rates on export flour and rates on grain subsequently ground into export flour. , Locality must sustain disadvantage of its location. Milling-in-transit of Canadian grain. Point-of-destination entitled to same milling-in-transit privileges as point-of-origin. Milling-in-transit privileges cannot be granted after transportation ser- vice is ended. Sustained: 168 Fed. 131. Cited: ICC 18-582 364 STAR GRAIN & LUMBER COMPANY v. A. T. & S. FE RY. CO. Lumber rates from Southern producing points to Western points. No allowance in division of rates to tap lines not parties to tariff. Through routes and joint rates established. Nature of jurisdiction of Commission. Basis for establishment of divisions of through rate. Extent of carrier's obligation to transport. Rates protecting local traffic. Rates restricting zone of trade. Cited: ICC 17-339 209. Fed. 247. 23-281 25-295 27-70 28-473 Vol. 14 I. C. C. CITATIONS. Page 374 MONTGOMERY FREIGHT BUREAU v. MOBILE & OHIO R. R. CO. Reasonableness of carload rates on fertilizer from Montgomery to Mis- sissippi points. Cited: ICC 27-236 376 CORN BELT MEAT PRODUCERS ASSO. v. C. B. & Q. R. R. CO. Live stock rates from Iowa points to Chicago. Discrimination in feeding-in-transit privilege. Every shipper is entitled to reasonable rates. What constitutes an unlawful rate. Special transportation service as factor in rate. Cost of service as factor in rate. Distance as factor in rate. State-made rates as measure of reasonableness. Commission has no authority to establish general rate structure. Cited: ICC 17-534 22-405 27-132 29-540 398 BANNER MILLING COMPANY v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. R. CO. Flour and grain rates from Buffalo to Eastern points. Relative rates on grain from Buffalo and Minneapolis to Eastern points. Relationship between rates on wheat and flour. Presumptions arising from long-maintained rate. Impairment of business investment by change in rate. Public welfare as factor in rates. Practice — Burden of proof on party attacking rate. Practice — No estoppel of record in proceedings before Commission. Cited: ICC 15-128 19-128 15-360 20-509 15-497 24-104 18-116 24-188 410 WHOLESALE FRUIT & PRODUCE ASSO. v. A. T. & S. FE RY. CO. Rules and regulations in re loading and unloading cars are subject to Act. Shipper's duty as to loading and unloading carload freight. Carrier's duty as to unloading carloads of package freight. Carrier under no obligation to furnish place for distribution of consoli- dated carload shipments. Cited: ICC 17-186 17-598 18-273 422 CALIFORNIA COMMERCIAL ASSO. v. WELLS FARGO & CO. Express rates between New York and San Francisco. Bulk shipments intended to be distributed by consignee. Preferential rates for large shippers indefensible. Ownership cannot be made test as to application of rates. Intendment of provisions of Act. Cited: ICC 14-437 220 U. S. 244. 14-440 220 U. S. 248. 16-461 21-300 I. C. C. CITATIONS. Vol. 14 Page 437 EXPORT SHIPPING COMPANY v. WABASH R. R. CO. Right of shipper to consolidate less-than-carload shipments on basis of carload rate. Charges based on ownership of goods shipped. Calif. Com. Asso. v. Wells Fargo Co., supra, followed. Reversed: 166 Fed. 499. Sustained: 220 U. S.-23S; 55 L. Ed. 448; 31 S. C. 392. Cited: ICC 14-434 169 Fed. 894 21-300 476 FLORIDA FRUIT & VEGETABLE SHIPPERS PROTECTIVE ASSOCIATION V. A. C. L. R. R. CO. Rates on fruit and vegetables from Florida to Northern points. Parity between Florida and California rates on oranges. Equalization of market competition. Relative rights of carrier and shipper to route shipment. Through charge unreasonable because of excessive' component part. Comparison of car earnings in determining reasonableness of rate. Cost of operation as factor in rate. State-made rates as factor in interstate rates. Rates cannot be established to shut out foreign competition. Reasonableness of refrigeration charges. Sustained: 200 Fed. 797. Reversed: 234 U. S. 167; 58 L. Ed. 1267; 34 S. C. 867. Cited: ICC 16-429 23-252 17-427 23-394 17-552 24-562 20-192 28-240 22-12 510 TRAFFIC BUREAU OF ST. LOUIS v. C. B. & Q. R. R. CO. Application for rehearing on allowance for grain elevation service. General effect and observance to be given to decisions of Commission. Reversed: 176 Fed. 409. Modified: 222 U. S. 42; 56 L. Ed. 83; 32 S. C. 22. Cited: ICC cc 10-309 14-551 cc 178 Fed. 223. cc 12-85 15-90 cc 222 U. S. 215. cc 14-317 18-366 516 STATE OF OKLAHOMA v. A. T. & S. FE RY. CO. Coal rates Pittsburg, Kan., to Colorado and Oklahoma points. Per ton-mile earnings as measure of reasonableness of rate. Cited: ICC 18-278 523 GAMBLE-ROBINSON COMMISSION CO. v. N. P. RY. CO. Rate on apples from Washington points to Minneapolis. Cited: ICC 18-551 537 HAYDEN & WESTCOTT LUMBER CO. v. GULF & SHIP ISLAND RAILROAD COMPANY. Reparation awarded on shipment of lumber from Jackson, Miss., to Chicago on basis of prior decision. Cited: ICC 14-539 14-540 Vol. 14 I. C. C. CITATIONS. Page 551 TRAFFIC BUREAU OF ST. LOUIS v. C. B. & Q. R. R. CO. Postponement of effective date of order in re allowances for grain elevation. Reversed: 176 Fed. 409. Modified: 222 U. S. 42; 56 L. Ed. 83; 32 S. C. 22. Cited: ICC cc 10-309 cc 178 Fed. 223. cc 12-86 cc 222 U. S. 215. 14-315 cc 14-317 cc 14-510 553 EAST ST. LOUIS WALNUT CO. v. MISSOURI PACIFIC RY. CO. Rate on walnut logs from Newport, Ark., to East St. Louis. Cited: ICC 17-583 24-227 558 CRUTCHFIELD & WOOLFOLK v. L. & N. R. R. CO. Practice — All carriers responsible for joint rate must be made parties defendant. Practice — Complaint may be amended to make proper joinder of parties. Cited: ICC 17-302 561 AMERICAN LUMBER & MANFG. CO. v. SOUTHERN PACIFIC CO. Minimum weight to be applied when car of capacity ordered is not furnished. Reparation because of carrier's inability to supply car of size ordered. Cited: ICC 16-208 S63 RAILROAD COMMISSION OF INDIANA v. KY. & IND. BRIDGE & RAILROAD COMiPANY. Bridge tolls between Louisville and New Albany. Local may exceed proportional rate between same points. Proportional rates apply in absence of joint through rate. Cited: ICC 24-333 573 SYLVESTER v. PENNSYLVANIA RAILROAD COMPANY. Through rate should not exceed sum of locals. Cited: ICC 16-210 575 EAST ST. LOUIS WALNUT COMPANY v. C. R. I. & P. RY. CO. Rate on walnut logs Arkansas points to St. Louis. Carrier cannot be required to meet short-line competition. Rate per ton-mile as measure of reasonableness. Cited: ICC 17-583 24-227 577 CARSTENS PACKING CO. v. NORTHERN PACIFIC RY. CO. Carrier's duty to furnish car of size ordered. Cited: ICC 15-431 594 CHICAGO, SASH & DOOR ASSO. v. NORFOLK & WEST. RY. CO. Competitive conditions as justifying disparity in rates. Cited: ICC 22-525 26-625 I. C. C. CITATIONS. Vol. IS Page 597 KANSAS CITY HAY DEALERS ASSO. v. MO. PAC. RY. CO. Minimum carload weights on hay. Minimum carload weight as factor in rate. Rule of stare decisis in proceedings involving controverted questions of fact. Practice — Briefs must be filed on or before date assigned therefor. Question of reasonableness of rate one of fact in each particular case. Cited: ICC 20-630 604 KAYLE & CARTER LUMBER CO. v. C. M. & ST. P. RY. CO. Allowance for dunnage. Failure to make allowance for car stakes results in excessive rate. General custom of carriers as factor in determining reasonableness of rate. Cited: ICC 25-495 619 In re ALLOWANCES FOR TRANSFER OF SUGAR AT N. Y. CITY. Legality of allowances to shipper for receipt and delivery of shipment. Allowances to shipper amounting to rebate. Commission's jurisdiction to make order in inquiry made on its own motion. Pooling agreement as to tonnage and routing of shipments. Carrier's duty in re receipt and delivery of shipments. Tariffs should contain net rate of freight. Sustained: 200 Fed. 652. Reversed 207 Fed. 733. Cited: ICC 15-572 174 Fed. 115. 17-51 cc 225 U. S. 306. 20-206 631 KANSAS CITY HAY COMPANY v. ST. L. & S, F. R. R. CO. Illegal to grant transit privileges without tariff authority. Tariff must make reference to all rules and regulations affecting rates therein. Carload rate is not accurately stated in tariff unless minimum weight is also specified. Cited: ICC 19-13 VOLUME IS. 1909. 1 PORTOR V. ST. LOUIS & SAN FRANCISCO RAILROAD CO. Through rate should not exceed sums of locals. Demurrage charges cannot be assessed unless shipper or consignee at fault for delay. Commission has jurisdiction whenever unreasonableness of rate is in issue. Demurrage charge accruing pending dispute as to rate. Cited: ICC 20-405 20-569 28-659 9 NAYLOR & COMPANY v. LEHIGH VALLEY RAILROAD CO. Parity of rates between pyrites cinder and iron ore. Value of commodity as factor in rate. Reversed: 207 Fed. 717. Cited: ^ cc 211 Fed. 792. Vol. IS I. C. C. CITATIONS. Page 11 COMMERCIAL COAL CO. v. BALTIMORE & OHIO R. R. CO. Coal rate Grafton, W. Va., to Kalamazoo, Mich. Carrier not obliged to meet competition. Disparity in rates of lines serving same points not conclusive evidence of unreasonableness. Presumption arising from voluntary reduction of rate. Cited: ICC 15-49 15-51 15-503 20-148 15 AMERICAN BANKERS ASSO. v. AMERICAN EXPRESS CO. Express company's right to deal in financial business outside of trans- portation service. Express companies must serve without discrimination. Act makes no distinction as to character of ownership of carrier- Procedure — When subpoena duces tecum will not issue. Cited: ICC 16-248 27 WHITCOMB v. CHICAGO & NORTHWESTERN RAILWAY CO_ Classification of automobiles. Rates on new and second-hand automobiles. Reparation will not be awarded for misquotation of rate. Cited: ICC 26-481 33 FOLMER & COMPANY v. GREAT NORTHERN RAILWAY CO. Illegal to grant reconsignment privileges not covered by tariff. Act of negligence which deprives shipper of benefit of unlawful rate not basis for reparation. Informal complaint sufficient to stop running of statute of limitations- Cited: ICC 15-238 15-276 15-531 19-13 37 LANNING-HARRIS COAL & GRAIN CO. v. ST. L. & S. F. R. R. CO. Commission has authority to award reparation for overcharge in rate. Commission cannot adjudicate claim of carrier against shipper. Cited: ICC 20-11 42 STATE OF OKLAHOMA v. C, R. I. & P. RY. CO. Petroleum rates Kansas and Missouri points to Oklahoma. Distance as factor in rates. Cited: ICC 18-389 49 MENEFEE LUMBER COMPANY v. TEXAS & PACIFIC RY. COL Yellow pine rate from Lake Charles, La., to El Paso, Tex. Disparity in rates of lines serving same points not conclusive e^&msx: of unreasonableness. Reduction of rate not evidence of unreasonableness of former ratsi. Cited: ICC 15-503 18-198 20-148 I. C. C. CITATIONS. Vol. IS Page S3 BLUME & COMPANY v. WELLS FARGO & COMPANY. CaTrrier's duty to safely transport and deliver promptly not within pur- view of Act. Commission has no jurisdiction to award tort damages. Cited: ICC 17-127 20-521 S6 FOSTER LUMBER COMPANY v. A. T. & S. FE RY. CO. Carrier'.'! duty to initiate rates. Reduction of rate not evidence of unreasonableness of former rate. Cited: ICC lS-178 lS-181 1S-S03 17-385 59 GREEN BAY BUSINESS MEN'S ASSO. v. B. & O. R. R. CO. Relative rates between Green Bay and Menominee. Invested business interests as factor in reasonableness of advanced rate. Presumptions in long-established rates, Cited: ICC 17-132 24-17 70 NORTH BROS. v. CHICAGO, MILWAUKEE & ST. PAUL RY. CO. Hay rates Kansas City to Mississippi River points. Extent of carrier's duty to meet rate of competitor. Presumptions arising from restoration of prior lower rate. Cited: ICC 16-98 16-102 16-491 73 CEDAR HILL COAL & COKE CO. v A. T. & S. FE RY. CO. Carriers creating unlawful discrimination by dividing and diversifying themselves by contract. Identity of ownership in agency of transportation and commodity trans- ported. Cited: ICC 16-403 28-503 79 DARLING & COMPANY v. BALTIMORE & OHIO R. R. CO. Rate on phosphate rock from Tennessee points to Northern points. Standard of comparison for testing reasonableness of rates. Presumptions arising from long-established rate adjustment. Value of commodity as factor in rates. Water competition as factor in rates. Per ton-mile revenue as measure of reasonableness of rates. All affected interests to be considered in readjustment of rates. Cited: ICC 18-525 Vol. 15 I. C. C. CITATIONS. Page 90 NEBRASKA-IOWA GRAIN CO. v. UNION PACIFIC R. R..CO. Allowances for grain elevation service. Bulk grain storage as part of transportation service. Procedure — Force and effect of Commission's rulings. No holding of Commission can render lawful that which is of itself unlawful. Requiring return of empty cars as condition precedent to payment of allowance. Reversed: 176 Fed. 409. Modified: 222 U. S. 42; S6 L. Ed. 83; 32 S. C. 22. Cited: ICC cc 10-309 cc 14-317 cc 16-337 176 Fed. 425. cc 12-85 cc 14-510 16-592 cc 178 Fed. 223. cc 14-315 cc 14-551 25-211 cc 222 U. S. 215. 109 BEATRICE CREAMERY CO. v. ILLINOIS CENTRAL R. R. CO. Distance scale of rates on cream in cans. History, origin and development of creamery business. Change in rate as impairing business investments. Rate is matter of public concern and not subject of private contract. Rates not established to foster or discourage industry. Public welfare as element in rates. Market competition as factor in rates. Reasonableness of rates permitting centralization of traflfi'c from orig- inating points. Cited: ICC 15-134 20-100 21-528 22-253 22-574 138 CELINA MILL & ELEVATOR COMPANY v. ST. L. S. W. RY. CO. Back-haul rates under milling-in-transit privileges. Commission will not require free out-of-line haul. Carrier must accord equal privileges in milling-in-transit. Jurisdiction of Commission over milling-in-transit privileges. Cited: ICC 15-496 19-526 147 WASHER GRAIN COMPANY v. MISSOURI PACIFIC RY. CO. Allowances for commercial elevation of grain are illegal. Bulk grain storage as part of transportation service. Jurisdiction of Commission to establish rates and award reparation. Commission an administrative body having quasi-judicial functions.. Primary jurisdiction of Commission. Concurrent remedy in courts in reparation cases. Character of evidence to warrant award of reparation. Procedure — Costs and attorney's fee not assessed in proceedings. Cited: ICC 18-212 18-216 19-314 25-329 160 AMERICAN CREOSOTING WORKS v. ILL. CENTRAL R. R. CO. Extent of carrier's duty to furnish equipment. Demurrage charges cannot be assessed unless shipper or consignee at fault. Demurrage rules in re "bunching'' of cars. Cited: ICC 20-569 I. C. C. CITATIONS. Vol. 15 Page 165 TAYLOR v. MISSOURI PACIFIC RAILWAY COMPANY. Procedure — Extent of complainant's duty to present case. Procedure — Burden of proof as to unreasonableness of rates involved. Procedure — Commission will itself assume onus of making investiga- tion into questions raised, Cited: ICC 15-533 170 WOODWARD & DICKERSON v. L. & N. R. R. CO. Duty of carrier to respect shipper's routing instructions. Jurisdiction of Commission to award damages for misrouting. Informal complaint will stop running of statute of limitations. Commission modifies administrative ruling without formality of com- plaint. Sustained: 187 Fed. 847; 191 Fed. 705. Cited: ICC 17-9 19-300 185 PAYNE V. MORGAN'S LOUISIANA & TEXAS R. R. & S. S. CO. Rate on bananas New Orleans to El Paso, Tex. Cost of service as factor in rate. "Import traffic" defined. Cited: ICC 19-22 27-271 192 DULUTH LOG CO. v. MINNESOTA & INTERNATIONAL RY. CO. Allowances for dunnage. Carrier's duty to forward shipment via cheapest available route. Commission's ruling for construction and filing of tariffs. Cited: ICC 25-495 201 In re WHEN A CAUSE OF ACTION ACCRUES UNDER THE ACT. Cause of action accrues when payment of unlawful charges is made. Cause of action for other violations of Act accrues when carrier does or fails to do what law requires.- Cited: ICC 18-431 205 In re JURISDICTION OVER WATER CARRIERS. Water carriers subject to Act in re through traffic with rail carrier. Cited: ICC 21-209 190 Fed. 960. 224 U. S. 194. 228 WILLIAMSON v. OREGON SHORT LINE R. R. CO. Tariffs must be affirmative and definite in form and free from ambiguity. Applying through rate to intermediate points. Cited: ICC 15-232 235 KILE & MORGAN COMPANY v. DEEPWATER RAILWAY CO. Carrier's liability for misrouting shipments. Tariffs subject to cancellation at option of carrier are illegal. Carrier's negligence cannot deprive shipper of lawful privilege offered by another carrier. Statute of limitation in re reparation claims. Procedure — Cause of action accrues on date freight charges are paid. Reconsignment privileges not covered by tariff not basis for reparation. Extent of Commission's jurisdiction in re claims for reparation. Cited: ICC 15-598 20-522 17-10 21-531 19-13 Vol. IS I. C. C. CITATIONS. Page 239 JOICE COMPANY v. ILLINOIS CENTRAL R. R. CO. Legal effect of agreement or stipulation providing for compromise set- tlement of claim. Cited: ICC 17-59 29-95 248 CRANE RAILROAD CO. v. PHILADELPHIA & READING CO. Allowances to industrial railway. Distinction between plant facility and transportation service. Character of service performed determines character of facility. Essential elements of common carrier. Ownership by shipper of railroad does not affect its status. Sustained: 209 Fed. 238. Cited: ICC 17-514 209 Fed. 257. 21-304 23-23 27-360 28-120 274 BEEKMAN LUMBER COMPANY v. ST. L., I. M. & S. RY. CO. Rate on rough-sawed tent pins should not exceed lumber rates. Value of commodity as factor in rates. Informal complaint stops running of statute of limitation. Cited: ICC 15-531 286 BLACK MOUNTAIN COAL LAND CO. v. SOUTHERN RY. CO. Rates on coal from Virginia points to Eastern and Southern points. Principles governing; grouping of rates. Carrier's duty to accord equal treatment to shipping public. Shipper's right to reach competitive markets on relatively equal terms. Standard of comparison to be used as test in determining reasonable- ness of rate. Locality's natural advantage of location as factor in rate. Factors entering into construction of rates. Distance as factor in rate. Impairment of business conditions as element of reasonableness of ad- vanced rate. Depreciation of carrier's revenue as factor in rates. Cited: ICC 15-458 23-24 16-18 26-654 18-408 27-661 21-223 29-700 301 BENNETT v. MINN., ST. PAUL & ST. STE. MARIE RY. CO. Minimum weight on glass loaded in box car. Basis for charges for transportation of long or bulky articles. Practice — Prior agreement between litigants no bar to action. Practice — ^Riglit of party to intervene in proceedings. Cited: ICC 18-151 18-166 22-469 23-398 I. C. C. CITATIONS. Vol. IS Page 305 MOUNTAIN ICE COMPANY v. D., L. & W. R. R. CO. Rates on ice from New Jersey and Pennsylvania points. Distinction between "special" and "expedited" service. Impairment of business investments as factor in reasonableness of pro- posed advanced rates. Presumptions arising from long-maintained rates. Value of commodity as factor in rate. Rate per ton-mile as factor in reasonableness of rates. Cost of service as element in rates. ' / Cited: ICC 17-448 21-46 326 PENROD WALNUT & VENEER CO. v. C, B. & Q. R. R. CO. Walnut veneer rates from Kansas City to Chicago points. Value of commodity and manner of manufacture as elements in rate. Commodity rates should be avoided wherever possible. Rate once reasonable may become unreasonable because of changed conditions. No reparation awarded unless past rates have been excessive. Cited: ICC 26-125 332 SOLOMON BROS. & CO. v. NEW ORLEANS & N. W. R. R. CO. • Duty of carrier to inform shipper of lower rate based on released valu- ation clause. Cited: ICC 18-182 334 MORSE PRODUCE COMPANY v. C, M. & ST. P. RY. CO. Practice — Petition should state whole case, including any reparation claimed. Reparation not necessarily awarded because rate is reduced. Jurisdiction of Commission to establish rates and award reparation. Cited: ICC 15-603 349 GENERAL CHEMICAL CO. v. NORFOLK & WESTERN RY. CO. Carrier's duty under tariffs specifying certain minima for cars of cer- tain size. Carrier furnishing two smaller cars instead of one of capacity ordered. Cited: ICC 16-208 17-299 16-287 17-323 16-290 22-433 351 AUGUST J. BULTE MILLING COMPANY v. C. & A. R. R. CO. Relative proportional flour and grain rates between Missouri River points and Twin Cities to Chicago. Parity between rates on wheat and flour. Per ton-mile revenue as factor in rate. Division not final test of reasonableness of through rate. Water competition as factor in rate. Potential water competition justifies discriminatory rates. Relation of source of supply to manufacturing point as factor in rates. Policy of Conimission in re rates to fostor industry in competition with foreign trade. Cited: ICC 16-79 24-137 197 Fed. 64. 16-554 26-122 18-118 27-80 18-363 Vol. 15 I. C. C. CITATIONS^ Page 370 INDIANAPOLIS FREIGHT BUREAU v. C. C. C. & ST. L. RY. CO. Basis for charges for transportation of long and bulky articles. Increase in charges for furnishing special equipment. Unattractiveness of traffic as basis for discriminatory rates. Establishment of transit privileges. Cited: ICC 18-151 22-469 23-398 29-73 376 CITY OF SPOKANE v. NORTHERN PACIFIC RAILWAY CO. Rates from Eastern points to Spokane, Wash. R-elative effect of water competition on Pacific Coast terminal and inter- mediate rates. Water competition may justify difference in carload minimums. Fourth Section — Water competition as creating dissimilarity of con- ditions. Natural advantage of location as factor in rates. Financial condition of carrier as factor in rates. Carriers earning capacity as affected by ownership of mineral lands. Rates as affected by development of country. Standard of comparison to be used as test of reasonableness of rates. Cost of service as factor in rates. Principle to govern in determining reasonableness of rates where two or more lines are involved. Rates must be established with reference to whole situation. Cited: ICC 15-555 18-464 20-273 188 Fed. 254. 15-561 19-163 21-25 16-179 19-269 21-417 17-595 19-470 23-153 24-102 432 CARSTENS PACKING CO. v. BUTTE, ANACONDA & PAC. RY. CO. Carrier may not contract for special service unless charges therefor are published. Cited: 191 Fed. 710. 434 NATIONAL LUMBER COMPANY v. S. P. L. A. & S. L. R. R. CO. Illegal to grant privileges not covered by published tariff. Reparation not allowed because carrier has ceased to grant an unpub- lished privilege. Cited: ICC 19-13 443 WEST TEXAS FUEL COMPANY v. TEXAS & PACIFIC RY. CO. Switching service on interstate shipment is subject to Act. Factors determining reasonableness of switching charges. Cited: ICC 17-491 453 CITY OF BRISTOL, TENN,, v. VIRGINIA & S. W. RY. CO. Coal rates from Virginia points to Tennessee points. Relation of state-made rates to interstate rates. Presumptions arising in voluntarily established rates. Concerted action of carriers in advancing rate as factor in reasonableness. Net earnings of carrier as factor in reasonableness of rate. Cited: ICC 15-490 I. C. C. CITATIONS. Vol. IS Page 460 CHAMBER OF COM. OF MILWAUKEE v. C. R. I. & P„ RY. CO. Grain rates from West to Milwaukee placed on parity with Chicago rates. Carrier cannot restrict or limit extent of competition between cities. Rates to protect carrier's long haul. Obligation of carrier to transport property tendered. Tests of reasonableness of rates. Cited: ICC lS-626 26-88- 17-481 26-235 24-109 27-70 24-615 29-614 26-58 480 AMERICAN REFRACTORIES CO. v. E., J. & E. R. R. CO. Measure of damages in reparation claims. Cited: ICC 25-148 491 KANSAS CITY TRANS. BUREAU v. A. T. & S. FE RY. CO. Grain rates from Kansas points to Kansas City as compared with rates to Gulf ports. Rates restricting movement of traffic to certain primary markets. Natural advantage of location as factor in rates. Limitation on Commission's power to establish through route. Commission has no power to require increase in rate. Cited: ICC 23-410 504 INDIANAPOLIS FREIGHT BUREAU v. C. C. C. & ST. L. RY. CO. Relative rates between Indianapolis and Chicago to various gateways. Classification of territory for rate-making purposes must be based on sound transportation reasons. Comparison of minimum weights on carload shipments in Central Freight Association and Western territories. Basis for charges on large and bulky articles. Placing competitive markets upon an equal rate basis. Circumstances under which general rate structure will not be disturbed. Presumptions arising from long-maintained rates. Revenue per ton-mile as measure of reasonableness of rates. Cited: ICC 16-68 23-208 25-335 534 MONROE PROGRESSIVE LEAGUE v. ST. L., I. M. & S. RY. CO. General adjustment of rates to Monroe, La. Relative adjustment of group rates. Water competition as factor in rates. Fourth Section — Controlling competition justifies relief from. Per ton-mile revenue as measure of reasonableness of rates. Cited: ICC 16-486 197 Fed. 65. 17-173 28-573 543 PLACE V. TOLEDO, PEORIA & WESTERN RAILWAY CO. Definition of emigrant's movables. Cited: ICC 21-247 Vol. 15 I. C. C. CITATIONS. Page 546 CEDAR HILL COAL & COKE CO. v. COLORADO & S. RY. CO. Reconsignment charge on shipments of coal. Reasonableness of reconsignment charge dependent on cost of service. Presumptions arising from prior higher rate being reduced. Cited: ICC 17-87 26-479 555 KINDEL v. NEW YORK, NEW HAVEN & HARTFORD R. R. CO. Basis of rates to apply to Colorado and Utah points from Eastern points. Basing points system of rate-making. Adjustment of rates should give consideration to all interests involved. Principle governing application of cost of service in determining rea- sonableness of rates. Principle to govern in determining reasonableness of rates where two or more lines are involved. Through rate should not exceed sum of intermediate rates. Relation of proportional rates to local rates. Density of traffic as factor in rates. Terminal service as factor in rates. Reversed: 171 Fed. 680. Sustained: 218 U. S. 88; 54 L, Ed. 946; 30 S. C. 651. Cited: 188 Fed. 254, ICC 18-464 22-259 25-195 19-402 22-478 27-150 20-274 23-175 28-82 20-485 24-102 28-199 21-25 24-576 28-419 567 INDIANAPOLIS FREIGHT BUREAU v. PENNSYLVANIA R. R. CO. Relative rates to Indianapolis, St. Louis and Ohio River Crossings from Southern and Eastern points. Water competition as factor in rates. Carriers cannot be required to meet water competition. Fourth Section — Controlling competition justifies relief from. Dissimilarity of conditions as justifying disparity in rates. Cited: ICC 15-536 197 Fed. 65. 28-487 577 WYMAN, PARTRIDGE & CO. v. BOSTON & MAINE R. R. CO. Provisions of bill oi lading covering transportation via water. Marine insurance as factor in rates. Liability of carriers under lake bill of lading. Carriers must tender bill of lading consonant with their tariffs Cited: ICC 19-551 27-642 586 BAINBRIDGE BOARD OF TRADE v. L. H. & ST. L. RY. CO. Unjust discrimination and undue preference defined. Comparison of rates as measure of reasonableness. Carrier cannot be charged with undue preference in re community not served by it. Carrier serving two places, or participating in joint rate, responsible for discrimination. Carriers cannot be compelled to meet water competition. Cited: ICC 21-250 21-639 23-149 25-355 I. C. C. CITATIONS. Vol. 16 Page 595 NOLLENBERGER v. MISSOURI PACIFIC RAILWAY CO. Interstate commerce — Freight consigned to given point and reshipped. Intrastate rate being part of through charge does not affect interstate character of traffic. Factors constituting an arrangement for through and continuous carriage. Rates in one direction higher than in opposite between same points. Cited: ICC cc 13-329 17-226 620 STANDARD LIME & STONE CO. v. CUMBERLAND VAL. R. R. CO. Duty of carrier to transport without discrimination. Preference in favor of industries located on carrier's own line. Rates to protect long-haul traffic. Rates limiting market and creating monopoly in traffic. Cited: ICC 16-Sll 17-481 26-88 26-235 29-614 627 DULUTH LOG CO. v. MINNESOTA & INTERNATIONAL RY. CO. Carrier's duty to obey shippers routing instructions. Shipments entitled to lowest rate available. Allowance for stakes furnished by shipper. Cited: ICC 25-495 VOLUME 16. 1909. 6 LINDSAY y. BALTIMORE & OHIO SOUTHWESTERN R. R. CO. Rate on vehicles Lawrenceburg, Ind., .to Milwaukee. Joint through rate should not exceed sum of locals. Water competition as factor in rate. Carriers cannot be compelled to meet water competition. ■ Cited: ICC 18-164 19-329 20-226 23-376 12 BOARD OF TRADE OF WINSTON-SALEM v. N. & W. RY. CO. Coal from Pocahontas, Va., district to Carolina points. Factors to be considered in determining relative reasonableness of rates. Locality's natural advantage of location as factor" in rate. Per ton-mile earnings as factor in reasonableness of coal rate. Cost of service as factor in rate. Relative rates from main-line and branch-line points. Cited: ICC 19-308 21-227 22-236 26-146 20 AVERY MANUFACTURING COMPANY v. A. T. & S. FE RY. CO. Application of basing point system in rate making. Rate adjustment with view to commercial interests involved. Cited: ICC 28-512 Vol. 16 I. C. C. CITATIONS. Page 40 MAC GILLIS & GIBBS COMPANY v. C. & E. I. R. R. CO. Rate on poles should not exceed lumber rate. Cited: ICC 22-378 22-509 45 VOORHEES v. ATLANTIC COAST LINE R. R. CO. Rate on lettuce from St. Andrews, S. C, to New York. Cost of service as factor in rates. Cited: ICC 17-427 23-393 49 VIRGINIA-CAROLINA CHEMICAL CO. v. ST. L. S. W. RY. CO- Reasonableness of carload rates on fertilizer. Relationship between carload and less-than-carload rates. Locality must sustain disadvantage of its location. Commercial and transportation conditions entitling commodity to lovi? rate. Cited: ICC 18-1 20-555 26-225 26-353 27-236 56 INDIANAPOLIS FREIGHT BUREAU v. C. C. C. & ST. L. RY. CO. Relationship between rates from Indianapolis and Chicago to Mis- souri River. Application of basing point system in rate making. Construction of rates Chicago and Indianapolis to Mississippi and Mis- souri Rivers. Differential in rates for same service depending on point of origin of shipment. Through rate unreasonable because proportional rate unreasonable. That granting relief to one locality may give rise to similar contro- versies is no bar to adjudication. Competition compelled rate is not measure of reasonableness. Per ton-mile revenue as measure of reasonableness. Application of ''two-for-one" rule in assessment of minimum weights. Cited: ICC 16-163 23-356 21-549 24-20 22-101 29-385 23-195 73 VALLEY FLOUR MILLS v. A., T. & S. FE RY. CO. Grain rates from Kansas points to Phoenix, Ariz. Differentials between grain and grain products. Market competition as factor in rates. Cited: ICC 29-425 95 ARKANSAS FUEL COMPANY v. C, M. & ST. P. RY. CO. Hay rates from Kansas City. Distinction between legal and lawful rate. No lawful rate is immune from attack either with respect to present or future shipments. Remedies against exaction of unreasonable rates afforded by Act. Commission will take judicial notice of rate condition. Rule of stare decisis as applied to proceedings before Commission. Presumptions arising from restoration of former lower rate Cited: ICC 16-100 230 U. S. 260. I. C. C. CITATIONS. Vol. 16 Page lOO KANSAS CITY HAY COMPANY v. C, M. & ST. P. RY. CO. Hay rates from Kansas City. Presumptions arising from restoration of former lower rate. Application of rule of stare decisis to proceedings before Commission. Cited: ICC 16-491 106 OZARK FRUIT GROWERS ASSO. v. ST. L. & S. F. R. R. CO. Rate on strawberries and peaches from points in Ozark fruit region. Minimum weight on strawberries and peaches. Transportation under refrigeration or under ventilation as basis for dis- tinction in rates. Principle governing establishment of minimum weights. Car-mile earnings as measure of reasonableness of rates. Cost of service of factor in rate. Cited: ICC 16-153 19-517 16-429 22-159 17-427 26-620 116 WILSON PRODUCE COMPANY v. PENNSYLVANIA R. R. CO. Track storage charges at Pittsburgh. Exaction of storage charge in addition to regular demurrage charge. Use of cars and tracks as warehouses. Right of carrier to assess demurrage charges. Carrier may discriminate between localities in track-storage charges. Cited: ICC 21-458 26-414 131 PLANTERS GIN & COMPRESS CO. v. Y. & M. V. R. R. CO. Adjustment of rates on compressed and uncompressed cotton. Water competition as factor in rate. Cited: ICC 28-581 134 OZARK FRUIT GROWERS ASSO. v. ST. L. & S. F. R. R. CO. Rates on apples from Ozark fruit region. Principle governing establishment of minimum weights. Distance as factor in rate. Volume of traffic as factor in rate. ' Application of basing point system of rate making. Cited: ICC 19-116 23-262 24-41 153 OZARK FRUIT GROWERS ASSO. v. ST, L. & S. F. R. R. CO. Rate on strawberries and peaches from points in Ozark fruit region. Cited: ICC 26-620 155 INDIANA STEEL & WIRE COMPANY v. C, R. I. & P. RY. CO. Relative rates on wire from Northern points to Arkansas common points. Discrimination in grouping of rates. Market competition as factor in rates. Liability of carrier for discrimination against territory not reached by its rails. Carriers participating in or controlling rates are responsible for unjust discrimination. Manner of eliminating discrimination in joint or proportional rates. Vol. 16 I. C. C. CITATIONS. Page ISS Commission's power to eliminate discrimination by reduction in pro- portional rate. Cited: ICC 17-421 25-227 22-89 26-487 22-1 IS 26-604 22-120 27-144 23-353 28-548 164 KALISPELL LUMBER CO. v. GREAT NORTHERN RY. CO. Lumber rates from Montana points to Eastern points. Groupings of Pacific coast lumber-producing sections. Cost of production as factor in rates. Cited: ICC 16-175 157 Fed. 845. 165 Fed. 25. 179 CITY OF SPOKANE v. NORTHERN PACIFIC RAILWAY CO. Rates from St. Paul and Chicago to Spokane. Distance as factor in rate. Cited: ICC 19-164 182 MARICOPA CO. COMMERCIAL CLUB v. WELLS FARGO & CO. Express rates to California points. Application of basing point system in rate-making. Relation between rates and quality of service. Prosperity of carriers as factor in rates. Cited: ICC 20-572 195 KANSAS CITY TRANSP. BUREAU v. A. T. & S. FE RY. CO. Relative grain rates between Omaha and Kansas City. Scope of inquiry in determining reasonableness of proportional rate. Rate adjustment with view to commercial interests involved. Distance as factor in rates. Group or blanket rates on low-grade commodities. Volume of traffic as factor in rates. Market competition as factor in rates. Cited: ICC 18-78 22-68 208 BEGGS v. WABASH RAILROAD COMPANY. Duty of carrier to furnish car capable of carrying minimum weight pre- scribed. Cited: ICC 16-287 17-299 212 SUNDERLAND BROS. CO. v. CHICAGO & N. W. RY. CO. Rate on soft coal Sterling, 111., to Wausa, Neb. Cited: ICC 18-513 219 ENTERPRISE FUEL CO. v. PENNSYLVANIA RAILROAD CO. Through route established to suburban station within Baltimore. Rates restricting zone of market. Limitation on Commission's right to establish through route. Extent of shipper's right to through route. Different shipping communities may be included within city of wide ar.ea Cited: ICC 19-10 I. C. C. CITATIONS. Vol. 16 Page 232 DOUGLAS & COMPANY v. C, R. I. & P. RY. CO. Stoppage-in-transit privileges. Discrimination between competitive commodities and communities in transit privileges. Transit privileges not to be accorded product essentially different from raw material. Change in rate as impairing business investments. Commodity, market and locality competition as factors in rates. Jurisdiction of Commission in re transit privileges. Cited: ICC 21-97 21-541 29-76 246 In re CONTRACTS OF EXPRESS COMPANIES FOR FREE TRANSPORTATION. Limitation of carrier's right to issue free transportation to express com- pany employees. Cited: ICC 20-432 285 KAYE & CARTER LUMBER CO. v. MINN. & INTERN'L RY. CO. Carrier's duty under tariffs specifying certain minima for cars of cer- tain size. Carrier furnishing two smaller cars instead of one of capacity ordered. Informal complaint stops running of statute of limitations. Cited: ICC 16-290 17-299 17-323 18-68 22-434 289 M. A. HANNA COAL COMPANY v. NORTHERN PACIFIC RY. CO. Reparation for failure to supply cars of capacity ordered. Cited: ICC 17-211 293 J. H. ALLEN & COMPANY v. C, M. & ST. P. RY. CO. Combination of locals in excess of through rate subsequently established. Reparation when lawful rate was unreasonable. Cited: 230 U. S. 260. 300 In re THROUGH PASSENGER ROUTES VIA PORTLAND, ORE. Carrier's duty to accord the public proper transportation facilities. Factors constituting reasonable and satisfactory through route. Commission's power to establish through passenger route and joint rates. Local rate not necessarily measure of reasonableness of division. Reversed: 216 U. S. 538; 54 L. Ed. 608. 313 STONE-ORDEAN-WELLS CO. v. NORTHERN PACIFIC RY. CO. Rate on dried fruit from Fresno, Calif., to Montana points. Cited: ICC 18-15 315 NEW ALBANY BOX & BASKET CO. v. ILL. CENTRAL R. R. CO. Cancellation of rates by subsequent tariff. Cancellation of rates must be specific to be effective. Rate once lawfully published continues to be lawful rate until cancelled. Rates cannot be cancelled by implication. Cited: ICC 18-426 Vol. 16 I. C. C. CITATIONS. Page 323 CHICAGO LUMBER & COAL CO. v. TIOGA S. E. RY. CO. Allowances to tap line. General scheme of rates from yellow-pine region. Establishment of rate as result of concerted action of carriers. Density of population as factor in rate. Rate adjustment with view to commercial interests involved. Limitation of Commission's authority in re relative adjustment of rates. Rate adjustment to equalize commercial conditions. Relative rates between carriers serving same market. Law deals with carriers as single unit and not collectively. Rule of stare decisis in proceedings before Commission. Decisions of Commission must be based on broad principles of justice. Principle of blanket or group rates. Cited: ICC 16-335 19-52 26-263 16-336 23-352 29-586 18-393 23-525 18-537 24-222 341 NEWTON GUM COMPANY v. C, B. & Q. R. R. CO. Show cases entitled to commodity rate on furniture. Intention of framers or practice of carriers do not govern in construing tarififs. Tariffs are to be construed according to their language. Sustained: 191 Fed. 482. Cited: ICC 20-546 21-196 27-270 369 NORTHERN COAL & COKE CO. v. COL. & SOUTHERN RY. CO. Through rates on coal from Colorado points to Eastern points. Value of commodity as factor in rate. Per ton-mile revenue as measure of reasonableness of rate. Cited: ICC 21-79 376 DAVIES v. ILLINOIS CENTRAL RAILROAD CO. Estimated weights on cabbages in standard crates. Theory and purpose of estimated weights. Carriers should revise tariffs to conform with changed conditions. Estimated weights should conform as near as possible to actual weights. Cited: ICC 22-199 382 ROPER LUMBER-CEDAR COMPANY v. C. & N. W. RY. CO. Excessive charges as result of unreasonable milling-in-transit regulations. Cited: ICC 16-397 cc 200 Fed. 187. 385 MARSHALL & MICHEL GRAIN CO. v. ST. L. & S. F. R. R. CO. Carrier's duty to forward shipments via cheapest route. Cited: ICC 18-228 387 CEDAR HILL COAL & COKE CO. v. COL. & SOUTHERN RY. CO. Coal rates from Walsenburg, Colo., coal fields. Per ton-mile revenue as measure of reasonableness of rates. Cost of service as factor in rates. Improper grouping of rates. I. C. C. CITATIONS. Vol. 16 Paga ^ -387 Commission will not extend reconsignment privilege, except to correct discrimination. Cited: ICC 19-20 19-478 23-122 25-98 26-650 405 ASSO. OF UNION MADE GARMENT MFGRS. OF AMERICA v. C. & N. W. RY. CO. Classification of cheap cotton garments. Ability of traffic to move mider rates as measure of reasonableness. Relative rates between raw material and finished product. Value of shipment as factor in rates. Cited: ICC 18-205 23-436 410 KURTZ y. PENNSYLVAl^IA COMPANY. Combination passenger rate based on mileage and local ticket. Through charge must not exceed combination of locals. Common interest in management of two railroad properties as deter- mining liability. Sleeping car corhpanies subject to Act. Cited: ICC 18-62 21-433 436 INTERSTATE REMEDY CO. v. AMERICAN EXPRESS CO. Date of original shipment determines rights, privileges and obligations attaching throughout its transportation. Duty of shipper to know legal rate in effect. Carrier's duty under C. O. D. shipments. Effect of withdrawal of tariff on shipments in transit. Cited: ICC 24-156 25-134 452 GRAND JUNCTION MINING & FUEL CO. v. C. M. RY. CO. Rate on coal from Colorado points to Western points. Density of population as factor in rates. Comparison of per ton-mile revenue as measure of reasonableness of rates. Cost of service as factor in rates. Cited: ICC 24-215 25-423 471 GAINES V. SEABOARD AIR LINE RY. CO. Discrimination between white and colored passengers. Cited: ICC 16-230 482 P. P. WILLIAMS COMPANY v. V. S. & P. RY. CO. Adjustment of rates from Mississippi River Crossings to Texas Com- mon points. Texas Common point or group system of rate-making. Differentials diminish with increasing distance. Some discrimination necessarily incident to group rates. Cited: ICC 26-654 29-565 29-575 Vol. 16 I. C. C. CITATIONS. Page 512 HITCHMAN COAL & COKE CO. v. BALTIMORE & OHIO R. R. CO. Grouping of coal mines in Ohio, West Virginia and Pennsylvania for rate-making purposes. Carrier as shipper cannot be given preferential rates. Commercial competition as factor in rates. Distance not primary factor in group rates. Prosperity of shipper as factor -in rates. Cited: ICC 17-473 20-432 23-83 28-450 528 BEEKMAN LUMBER COMPANY v. C, R. I. & P. RY. CO- Rate on ties should not exceed lumber rate. Cited: ICC 18-131 21-616 534 COMMERCIAL CLUB OF HATTISBURG v. A. G. S. R. R. CO. Relative rates from Central Freight Association territory to Louisiana, Alabama and Mississippi points. Affected interests to be considered in readjustment of rates. Water competition as justifying discrimination. Cited: ICC 17-524 550 MOISE BROTHERS COMPANY v. C, R. L & P. RY. CO. Rates to Santa Rosa, N. M., from Eastern points. Division not test of reasonableness of local rate. Volume of tonnage as factor in rate. Carrier competition as factor in rate. Fourth Section — Burden of proof upon showing that competitive con- ditions caused discrimination. Cited': ICC 26-122 558 SUNNYSIDE COAL MINING COMPANY v. D. & R. G. R. R. CQ.. Carrier's duty as to notifying shipper of refusal of shipment. Commission will not extend reconsignment privilege except to remove discrimination. Illegal to grant privilege not covered by taHfif. Cited: ICC 19-13 572 FT. DODGE COkMERCIAL CLUB v. ILL. CENTRAL R. R. CO.. Rates from Chicago to Ft. Dodge. Iowa. Change in rate requiring new allignment as bar to Commission's action. Distance as factor in rates. Market competition as factor in rates. Per ton-mile revenue as measiire of reasonableness in rates. Relation of state-made rates to interstate rates. Cited: ICC 17-374 18-77 28-79 587 WINTERS METALLIC PAINT CO. v. C, M. & ST. P. RY. CO. Rate on ground iron ore from Iron Range, Wis., to Central Freight Association territory points. Commission no authority to order construction of private sidetrack. Carrier required to maintain switch connections. Cited: ICC 18-597 22-357 I. C. C. CITATIONS. Vol. 17 Page 590 W. S. DUNCAN & COMPANY v. N. C. & ST. L. RY. CO. Undue preference in reshipping and rebilling privileges on grain and hay at Nashville. Policy of law in re regulation of rates. Bulk grain storage as part of transportation service. Cost of service as factor in rates. When shipper entitled to carload rating. Reversed: 197 Fed. 58. Cited: ICC 19-401 cc 191 Fed. 37. 21-186 23-224 28-209 VOLUME 17. 1909—1910. 9 WOODWARD & DICKERSON v. L. & N. R. R. CO. Reparation — Limitation upon actions for recovery of money damages. Cited: 191 Fed. 712. 12 ANDERSON, CLAYTON & COMPANY v. ST. L. & S. R. R. CO. Adjustment of rates on compressed and uncompressed cotton. Carrier under no obligation to refund when shipment stops at milling- in-transit point. Cited: ICC 18-516 IS H. P. HOOD & SONS v. DELAWARE & HUDSON COMPANY. Milk rates from Vermont points to New York. Force and eflfect of agreements to maintain rates. Nature of transaction determines interstate character of commerce. Liability of carrier participating in through route. Comrnission no authority to enforce specific performance of contracts. Relation between carload and less-than-carload rates. Cited: ICC 23-500 22 GERMAIN COMPANY v. N. O: & N. W. R. R. CO. There must be definite tariff authority for all charges. Published rates are not nullified by failure of carriers to agree on divisions. Cited: ICC 18-9 - 209 Fed. 285. 27 GEORGE L. MONROE & SONS v. MICHIGAN CENTRAL R. R. CO. Demurrage charges cannot be collected under ambiguous tariff. Demurrage cannot be assessed where carrier responsible for detention Cited: ICC 18-9 209 Fed. 285. 18-415 19-347 20-405 20-559 Vol. 17 I. C. C. CITATIONS. Page 40 FEDERAL SUGAR REFINING COMPANY v. B. & O. R. R. CO. Regulations covering lighterage of freight at New York City. Legality of allowances to shippers for services performed. Undue preference in allowance by carriers for shipper's services,. Carriers cannot be compelled to extend their lines to new localities. Commission's jurisdiction over lighterage service. Carrier may contract with independent concern for terminal facilities. Reversed: 200 Fed. 779; 231 U. S. 274. . Cited: ICC 17-110 cc 207 Fed. 733. 20-200 cc 225 U. S. 306: 20-217 24-66 54 GREATER DES MOINES COMMITTEE v. C, R. I. & P. RY. CO. Proportional rates on through traffic to Des Moines, Iowa. Cited: ICC 17-56 17-413 26-280 28-67 56 BENTLEY & OLMSTED COMPANY v. L. S. & M. S. RY. CO. No carload rates will be established where commodity generally moves in less-than-carload quantities. Cited: ICC 28-209 57 GREATER DES MOINES COMMITTEE v. C, R. I. & P. RY. CO. Preference in class rates between Des Moines and Twin Cities from Chicago. Cited: ICC 17-413 28-79 29-541 58 ROBT. H. JENKS LUMBER CO. v. SOUTHERN RAILWAY CO. • Reparation — Compromise and settlement of claims. Cited: ICC 29-95 60 E. SONDHEIMER COMPANY v. ILLINOIS CENTRAL R. R. CO. Discrimination in reshipping privileges allowed at Cairo and Memphis. Discrimination must not exceed that which is warranted by differences in conditions. Extent of carrier's duty to accord equal facilities and rates. Dissimilarity of conditions justify discrimination. Water competition as factor in rate. Cited: ICC 20-606 197 Fed. 64, 22-240 24-691 72 W. W. MONTAGUE & COMPANY v. A. T. & S. FE RY. CO. Reasonableness of minimum weights for light and bulky articles. Weight of shipment as factor in rate. Inability to load minimum weight as evidence of unreasonableness. Cited: ICC 17-218 17-224 I. C. C. CITATIONS. Vol. 17 Page 90 MEMPHIS FREIGHT BUREAU v. KANSAS CITY S. RY. CO. Commission's jurisdiction in re lawfulness of regulation or practice not covered by tariflf. Reparation for payment of unreasonable charge not published in tariff. Cited: ICC 20-198 20-528 27-668 98 MERCHANTS COTTON PRESS & STORAGE CO. v. I. C. R. R. CO. Allowance for compression and switching of cotton. Extent of Commission's jurisdiction over contracts of carriers. Act does not regulate nor interfere with acts of carrier not involving duty to public. Commission has no power to require increase in rate. Ownership of transportation facility by shipper as evidence of illegality. Commission will look through corporate forms and examine substance of transaction. ' Cited: 176 Fed. 410. 113 In re MILLING-IN-TRANSIT RATES. Change in rates while commodity in state of suspended transportation at transit point. Rate applicable to through shipment is rate in effect on date of point- of-origin shipment. Cited: ICC 23-185 lis BOISE COMMERCIAL CLUB v. ADAMS EXPRESS COMPANY. Express rate from New York to Boise, Idaho. Differential in rate based on time of payment of charges. Through rate exceeding lowest combination of locals. Rights of shipper where dual rates are in effect. Fact that practice is of long standing no bar to action. Cited: ICC 24-399 123 F. M. TURNBULL COMPANY v. ERIE RAILROAD COMPANY. Track-storage and demurrage charges.. Different character of shipments as basis for distinction in free time allowance. Cited: ICC 26-414 125 CARSTENS PACKING CO. v. OREGON R. R. & NAV. CO. Commission has no jurisdiction over claims for delay or damage to property in transit. Washout causing diversion of traffic^Carrier liable for increased charges resulting therefrom. Cited: ICC 27-495 128 SAGINAW BOARD OF TRADE v. GRAND TRUNK RY. CO. History of percentage rates to Chicago, Mississippi River, Michigan and Ohio points. Percentage system of rate-making. Zone system of rate making. Density of traffic as factor in rate. Long-established rate adjustment will not be disturbed without adequate cause. Natural advantage of location as factor in rate. Vol. 17 I. C. C. CITATIONS. Page 128 Water competition as factor in rate. Differentials between competing cities. Cited: ICC 20-523 23-198 26-603 28-SO 139 SLIGO IRON STORE COMPANY v. A. T. & S. FE RY. CO. Rate on smithing coal from Chicago to Portales, N. M. Rates based on use to which commodity is put. Practice — Commission will not grant relief to parties who do not come before it with clean hands. Commission will not consider reasonableness of paper rate. Cited: ICC 19-529 149 AMERICAN COAL CO. v. BALTIMORE & OHIO RAILROAD CO. Coal rates from George's Creek, Md., to Tidewater. Equalization of corhmercial conditions. Group rates advantageous to public and carrier alike. Fourth Section — Intermediate points off main line. Cost of production as factor in rate. Commission reluctant to disturb long-established rate structure. Sustained: 174 Fed. 687. 197 METROPOLITAN PAVING BRICK CO. v. ANN ARBOR R. R. CO. Relative rates on different kind of brick in Central Freight Association and Trunk Line territories. Elements of classification of freight. Value of commodity as factor in rates. Commodity competition as element of classification. Distance as factor in rates. Rate based on use to which commodity is put. Commission no power to require free or reduced rates. Cited: ICC 19-531 22-132 20-240 25-141 21-41 25-474 22-118 26-130 220 ACME CEMENT PLASTER CO. v. C. & A. R. R. CO. Shipper taking possession at point in transit not entitled to through rate on shipment. Illegal to grant privileges not covered by tariff. Cited: ICC 19-13 225 BAER BROS. MERCANTILE CO. v. MO. PACIFIC RY. CO. Intrastate rate as part of through rate does not affect interstate char- _acter of traffic. Factors constituting arrangement for through and continuous carriage. Sustained: 195 Fed. 968; 200 Fed. 614; 209 Fed. 577. cc 13-329 cc 187 Fed. 485. 19-18 cc 233 U. S. 479. 23-120 231 NEW ORLEANS BOARD OF TRADE v. L. & N. R. R. CO. Class rates from New Orleans to Florida and Alabama points. Through rate exceeding sum of locals. Rates greater in one direction than in opposite between same points. Water competition as factor in rates. Presumptions arising from long continuance of rates. Sustained: 184 Fed. 118; 227 U. S. 88; 57 L; Ed. 431; 33 S. C. 185. Reversed: 195 Fed. 541. I. C. C. CITATIONS. Vol. 17 Page 239 WEST END IMPROVEMENT CLUB v. OMAHA & C. B. RY. & B. CO. Passenger fare between Council Bluffs and Omaha via street railway. Commission's jurisdiction over street railway engaged in interstate com- merce. Bridge toll as factor in rate. Reversed: 179 Fed. 243; 230 U. S. 324; 57 L. Ed. 1501; 33 S. C. 890. Sustained: 191 Fed. 40. Cited: ICC 22-189 24-25 251 KINDELON v. SOUTHERN PACIFIC COMPANY. Right to reparation extends to all similar shipments. What constitutes prima facie case when based on prior decision of Commission. Shipper's profits have no relation to right of reparation. Laches in presentation of claim for reparation. Cited: ICC 17-417 18-302 18-537 27-316 273 JAMES & ABBOT COMPANY v. BOSTON & MAINE R. R. CO. Rate on brick from Boston to Lewiston, Me. Relative rates on different kinds of brick. Relation between class and commodity rates. Value of commodity as factor in rate. Cited: ICC 25-148 276 T. M. PARTRIDGE LUMBER CO. v. GREAT NORTHERN RY. CO. Rates on poles and posts should not exceed lumber rates. Cited: ICC 22-509 280 MALES COMPANY v. LEHIGH & HUDSON RIVER RY. CO. Carrier's duty to respect shipper's routing, although higher rate results. No reparation where lawful charges had not been paid Cited: ICC 18-33 288 WHITE BROTHERS v. A. T. & S. FE RY. CO, When through rate may exceed sum of intermediate rates. When rule of stare decisis applies in proceedings before Commission Cited: ICC 18-306 18-309 297 JOBBINS v. CHICAGO & NORTHWESTERN RY. CO. Carrier's duty under, tariffs specifying certain minima for cars of cer- tain size. Carrier furnishing two smaller cars in lieu of large one ordered. Cited: ICC * 22-434 302 CRUTCHFIELD & WOOLFOLK v. L. & N. R. R. CO. Competition compelled rate not measure of reasonableness. Cited: ICC 21-570 304 WILLIAR v. CANADIAN NORTHERN QUEBEC RAILWAY CO. Reparation — All carriers parties to unlawful charge liable for refund. Cited: ICC 26-571 Vol. 17 I. C. C. CITATIONS. Pa?e 313 MEMPHIS COTTON OIL CO. v. ILLINOIS CENTRAL R. R. CO. Rates on cottonseed oil from points east of Mississippi River. Presumptions arising from long continuance of rate. Factors to be considered in determining reasonableness of rate. Distance as factor in rates. Value of service as factor in rates. Market competition as factor in rates. Water competition as factor in rates. Practice — Burden of proof where reasonableness of rate involved. Cited: ICC 18-56 18-536 19-421 20-45 21-249 322 SPRINGER v. EL PASO & SOUTHWESTERN R. R. CO. Carrier's duty under tariffs specifying certain minima for cars of cer- tain size. Carrier furnishing two smaller cars instead of one" of capacity ordered. Cited: ICC 22-434 191 Fed. 710. 324 CARSTENS PACKING CO. v. OREGON SHORT LINE R. R. CO. Presumptions arising from voluntary reduction of rate. Preferential rates should not be given trainloads over carloads. Burden of proof in proceedings under Fourth Section. Cited: ICC 29-665 338 STAR GRAIN & LUMBER COMPANY v. A. T. & S. FE RY. CO. Allowances to industrial tap lines. Essential characteristics of common carrier. Distinction between plant facility and common carrier. Commission will look to substance and not form in determining legality of transaction. Cited: ICC 18-517 182 Fed. 687. 18-535 209 Fed. 247. 19-50 21-307 23-281 354 F. H. BASCOM COMPANY v. A. T. & S. FE RY. CO. Proportional rate limited to shipments via particular line. Proportional rate defined. Proportional rate considered in its relation to whole rate. Proportional rate may be lower than local rate between same points. Cited: ICC 23-446 28-532 359 PABST BREWING COMPANY v. C, M. & ST. P. RY. CO. Reparation not awarded upon mere showing of carrier's willingness to pay. Reparation can only be awarded on affirmative finding of fact. Car-mile earnings as measure of reasonableness of rates. Practice — Joint presentation of complaint b3' carrier and shipper. Cited: ICC 26-5 26-450 I. C. C. CITATIONS. Vol. 17 Page 361 JOYNES V. PENNSYLVANIA RAILROAD CO. Discrimination in terminal facilities at Pittsburg. Damages due to delayed transportation. Extent and purposes of powers of Commission. Procedure — Matter of which Commission will take judicial notice. Commission has no power to award tort damages. Cited: ICC 18-212 19-314 23-187 176 Fed. 748. 18-216 19-371 26-479 183 Fed. 937. 18-244 19-476 28-645 200 Fed. 989. 18-557 19-551 28-657 375 SNOCK V. CENTRAL RAILROAD OF NEW JERSEY. Procedure when jurisdictional question over subject-matter is raised. Right of carrier to abandon station facilities. Cited: ICC 23-233 379 CORPORATION COMMISSION OF OKLA. v. C, R. I. & P. RY. CO. Extent of carrier's duty to receive and transport shipments. Carrier's joint and several liability for joint through rate. Cited: ICC 17-592 392 ROSSIE IRON ORE COMPANY v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. R. CO. Carrier's duty to notify consignee of arrival of shipment. Demurrage charges cannot be assessed unless shipper or consignee re- sponsible for detention. Cited: ICC 20-569 413 OTTUMWA COMMERCIAL ASSO. v. C, B. & Q. R. R. CO. Class rates from points east of Indiana-Illinois state line to Ottumwa, la Cited: ICC 28-67 28-79 29-541 418 RAILROAD COMMISSION OF TENN. v. ANN ARBOR R. R. CO. Carrier serving two places or participating in joint rate is responsible for discrimination. Manner of eliminating discrimination in joint or proportional rates. Commission's authority to reduce proportional rate. Legal effect of published rates. Carrier, market and water competition as factors in rates. Cited: ICC 22-89 25-227 22-120 26-604 22-416 27-144 23-353 28-548 423 ASPARAGUS GROWERS ASSO. v. A. C. L. R. R. CO. ■ Rate on asparagus from Charleston, S. C, to Eastern points. Reasonableness of refrigeration charges. Cost of service as factor in rates. Water competition as factor in rates. Cited: ICC 20-133 24-564 Vol. 17 I. C. C. CITATIONS. Page 430 M. C. KISER CO. v. CENTRAL OF GEORGIA RAILWAY CO. Rail-and-water rate on boots and shoes Boston and New York to Atlanta. Heavy and uniform tonnage as factor in rate. Presumptions arising from long continuance of rate. Relationship between class and commodity rates. Value of commodity as factor in rate. Bulk and weight as elements of classification. Carrier competition as factor in rates. Concerted action of carriers in advancing rate as factor in determining reasonableness. Practice — Allegations of complaint must be specific. Reversed: 194 Fed. 449. Cited: 1S8 Fed. 193. pc 163 Fed. 7S2. pc 165 Fed. 8. pc 166 Fed. 220. pc 171 Fed. 720. 443 LARROWE MILLING COMPANY v. C. & N. W. RY. CO. Duty of carrier to forward shipment via cheapest route. • Reparation for misrouting of shipment. Cited: ICC 17-508 17-548 447 MOUNTAIN ICE COMPANY v. D., L. & W. R. R. CO. Relative rates of commodities transported in special and ordinary cars. Cited: ICC 21-46 457 MURPHY v. NEW YORK CENTRAL & HUDSON RIVER R. R. CO. Construction of demurrage rules. When free time commences under demurrage rules. What constitutes good notice of arrival by mail under demurrage rules. Cited: ICC 18-36 21-177 471 A. MERLE CO. v. ATCHISON, TOPEKA & SANTA FE RY. CO. Rates based on use to which commodity is put. Cited: ICC 17-586 475 A. MERLE CO. v. N. Y. CENTRAL & HUDSON RIVER R. R. CO. Rate on brass tubing to Pacific coast points. Water competition as factor in rates. Value of commodity as factor in rate. Cited: ICC 21-417 479 CEDAR HILL COAL & COKE CO. v. COL. & SOUTHERN RY. CO. Coal rates from Walsenburg district in Colorado. Relationship of rates between one-line and two-line hauls. Obligation of carrier to transport property tendered without reference. Restricting traffic to movement between points on carrier's line. Carrier cannot restrict or limit extent of competition between com- munities. Cited: ICC 22-264 26-235 26-58 26-650 26-85 29-677 I. C. C. CITATIONS. Vol. 17 Page 488 E. LAUER & SON v. NEVADA-CALIFORNIA-OREGON RAILWAY. Through rate exceedmg sum of locals. Cited: ICC 17-490 496 NEW ORLEANS BOARD OF TRADE v. ILL. CENTRAL R. R. CO. Physical conditions and methods employed in export traffic at New Orleans. Demurrage free time allowance on export traffic. Comparison of facilities provided at different cities as basis for deter- mining reasonableness of practice. Cited: ICC ' 25-229 503 LIEBOLD V. DELAWARE, LACKAWANNA & WESTERN R. R. CO. Reduction in rates as evidence of unreasonableness of prior rate. Cited: ICC 18-362 19-584 508 AMOS REHBERG & COMPANY y. ERIE RAILROAD COMPANY. Carrier's duty to forward shipment via cheapest route. Practice — Statute of limitation continues to run in favor of carrier until made party defendant. Cited: ICC 23-183 514 CRANE IRON WORKS v. CENTRAL R. R. OF NEW JERSEY. Allowances to industrial railways. Distinction between plant facility and common carrier. Right of terminal road to participate in through rate. Character of service rendered as test for determining status of railroad. Sustained: 209 Fed. 238. Cited: ICC 20-304 28-120 20-455 27-360 209 Fed. 2S7 20-546 29-229 23-23 521 MONTGOMERY FREIGHT BUREAU v. L, & N. R. R. CO. Relative rates from Ohio and Mississippi River Crossing to Southern points. History of rates from St. Louis to New .Orleans. Competition between commodities as factor in rate. Water competition as factor in rate. Cited: ICC 15-536 18-507 533 CORN BELT MEAT PRODUCERS ASSO. v. C, B. & Q. R. R. CO. Live stock rates from Iowa points to Chicago. Relationship between rates on hogs and cattle. Rate and minimum weight to apply on sheep in double-deck cars. Relationship between rates on live stock in single and double-deck cars. Carrier's duty under tariffs specifying certain minima for cars of cer- tain size. Cited: ICC 22-434 26-40 Vol. 18 I. C. C. CITATIONS^ Page 552 FLORIDA FRUIT & VEGETABLE SHIPPERS' PROTECTIVE ASSOCIATION V. A. C. L. R. R. CO. Gathering charge on pineapples from points in Florida. Transportation under refrigeration or under ventilation as basis for dis- tinction in rates. Locality's natural advantage of location as factor in. rate. Profits of shipper as factor in rate. Carrier's revenue as measure of reasonableness of rate. Competition as factor in rate. Reasonableness of rate tested by ability of traffic to move thereunder. Mixture of fruit and vegetables in carloads. Practice — Complaint must be definite as to matter to be dealt with. Sustained: 200 Fed. 797. Reversed: 234 U. S. 167; 58 L. Ed. 1267; 34 S. C. 867. Cited: ICC 20-134 23-252 • 20-192 23-394- 22-12 24-562 22-159 25-674 573 HENDERSON ELEVATOR CO. v. ILLINOIS CENTRAL R. R. CO. Reparation for damages dvie to discrimination in transit privilege. Cited: ICC 18-539 588 BLACK HORSE TOBACCO CO. v. ILLINOIS CENTRAL R. R. CO. Commission's authority in re through rates to Mexico. Initial carrier responsible for joint through rate published by it. Joint and several liability of carriers for joint rate. Efifect of carrier's failure to establish rate in legal form. Cited: ICC 20-18 22-276 25-227 594 W. P. FULLER & COMPANY v. P. C. & Y. RY. CO. Competition compelled rate not measure of reasonableness. Water competition as factor in Pacific coast rates. Cited: ICC 18-362 21-417 596 WHOLESALE FRUIT &_PRODUCE ASSO. v. A. T. & S. FE RY. CO. Carrier's duty in re unloading freight. Delivery and receipt of fruits and vegetables. Charges for non-transportation services. Prejudice and advantage must exist to constitute undue discrimination. Cited: ICC 18-239 18-271 29-443 VOLUME 18. 1910. VIRGINIA-CAROLINA CHEMICAL CO. v. ST. L., I. M. & S. RY. CO. Reasonableness of rate on fertilizer. Relation between carload and less-than-carload rates. Reparation — Statute of limitation. Cited: ICC 18-3 25-646 18-5 26-351 20-556 27-236 I. C. C. CITATIONS. Vol. 18 Page 3 VIRGINIA-CAROLINA CHEMICAL CO. v. C, R. I. & P. RY. CO. Reasonableness of carload rate on fertilizer. Cited: ICC 20-556 25-646 27-236 5 VIRGINIA-CAROLINA CHEMICAL CO. v. ST. L. & S. F. R. R. CO. Reasonableness of rate of fertilizer. Cited: ICC 20-556 27-236 7 UNITED STATES v. DENVER & RIO GRANDE R. R. CO. Demurrage at point other than destination must be authorized by tariff. Demurrage can only be assessed where detention is due to reasons be- yond carrier's control. Cited: 209 Fed. 285. 25 PEALE, PEACOCK & KERR v. CENTRAL R. R. CO. OF N. J. Right and duty of carrier to assess demurrage charges. Primary object of demurrage rules. Purpose and function of embargoes. When demurrage accrues on cars containing freight for trans-shipment to vessel. Not duty of carrier to furnish storage beyond reasonable time necessary to unload. Carrier no right to contract as to demurrage charges. Shipper's lack 'of knowledge of demurrage rules does not vitiate carrier's right to assess. ' ' Shipper's quota of available cars not affected by character of ownership of cars furnished. Extent of Commission's jurisdiction in re demurrage and storage charges. No reparation when lawful charges have not been paid. Cited: ICC 18-44 188 Fed. 885. 25-231 227 U. S. 269. 38 LYAN & READ v. BALTIMORE & OHIO R. R. CO. Demurrage free time allowance on export coal. Discrimination in assessment of demurrage charges. Primary reasons for demurrage charges. Competition as factor in demurrage rules. Carrier's duty to prevent delays to shipment. "Arrival of car" defined under demurrage rules. Cited: ICC 25-229 53 COMMERCIAL CLUB OF OMAHA v. SOUTHERN PACIFIC CO. Rates on beans from California points to Omaha. Presumptions arising from restoration of former lower rate. Cited: ICC 20-631 60 ESCHNER v. PENNSYLVANIA RAILROAD CO. Passenger's right to use of mileage tickets. Carrier may condition special fare tickets in re accommodations. Authority of Commission in re reduced passenger transportation. Cited: ICC 21-434 28-323 Vol. 18 I. C. C. CITATIONS. Page 67 MEMPHIS FREIGHT BUREAU v. ST. L. S. W. RY. CO. Pleadings — Informal complaint stops running of statute of limitation. Pleadings — Sufficiency of informal complaint. Application of practice rule of Commission. Presumptions arising from reduction of prior rate. Cited: ICC 20-423 73 GREATER DES MOINES COMMITTEE v. C, M. & ST. P. RY. CO. Rates from Des Moines to Minnesota, South Dakota and North Dakota. Presumptions arising where combination of locals is less than through rate. Competition as factor in measuring reasonableness of rates. Distance as factor in rates. Commission will take judicial notice of general rate situation. Cited: ICC 24-42 25-269 88 RAINEY & ROGERS v. ST. LOUIS & SAN FRANCISCO R. R. CO. Car-mile earnings as measure of reasonableness of rates. Competition compelled rates not measure of reasonableness of local rates. Cited: ICC 21-228 92 DONAHUE V. CHICAGO, MILWAUKEE & ST. PAUL RY. CO. Duty of carrier to respect routing of shipper, although higher rate results. No reparation where shipper specifies more expensive route. Cited: ICC 18-549 113 W. J. JENNISON COMPANY v. GREAT NORTHERN RY. CO. Lake-and-rail rates on grain products. Relationship between rates on wheat and fiour. Same relationship between commodities in all rail rates should be main- tained in lake-and-rail rates. Profits of shipper as factor in rates. Cost of service as factor in rates. Proportional rates as measure of reasonableness of through rates. Practice — Interveners cannot raise question not germane to issue raised by complainant. Cited: ICC 19-128 20-510 21-34 24-104 24-188 132 CRESSEY v. CHICAGO, MILWAUKEE & ST. PAUL RY. CO. Liability of carrier in disregarding shipper's routing. Reparation for misrouting shipment. Extent of Commission's jurisdiction over claims for damage Cited: ICC 20-522 21-531 135 LOFTUS V. PULLMAN COMPANY. Reasonableness of sleeping car rates. Upper berth should take lower rate than lower berths. Cited: ICC 19-102 20-21 20-26 I. C. C. CITATIONS. Vol. 18 Page 144 MILBURN WAGON COMPANY v. L. S. & M. S. RY. CO. Rates on wagons from Toledo to Western points. Through rate should not exceed sum of locals. Evidence — Unpublished rates not measure of reasonableness. Reparation on account of unreasonable rate used in making combina- tion rate. Cited: ICC 18-529 ISO JONES V. SOUTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY. Basis of charges for transportation of articles too long or bulky to load in box car. Unreasonableness of rules providing for assessment of estimated weights. Cited: ICC 18-209 20-417 22-469 23-398 154 COPPER QUEEN CONSOLIDATED MIN. CO. v. B. & O. R. R. CO. Joint through rate between two given points only lawful rate. Divisions as measure of reasonableness of through rate. Reparation — No award in absence of damage to complainant. Cited: ICC 27-154 165 BRUNSWICK-BALKE-COLLENDER CO. v. C, M. & ST. P. RY. CO. Basis of charges for transportation of long or bulky articles. Practice — Readjustment of rates will not be ordered where complaint is for reparation only. Cited: ICC 22-469 23-398 175 WELLS-HIGMAN COMPANY v. ST. L., I. M. & S. RY. CO. Receipt and reconsignment of shipment as, affecting interstate character of -same. State shipment through another state may constitute interstate commerce. Relative rates between one-line and two-line hauls. Cited: ICC 22-288 26-623 180 SOUTHERN COTTON OIL COMPANY v. L. & N. R. R. CO. Carrier's duty to secure shipper's signature to released valuation clause. Responsibility of carrier under released valuation clause. Carrier's duty to inform shipper as to nature of released rates. Cited: ICC 19-80 185 KNOX V. WABASH RAILROAD COMPANY. Basis of charges for transportation of long or bulky articles. Increase in charges for furnishing special equipment. ' Cited: ICC 22-469 23-398 205 FOREST CITY FREIGHT BUREAU v. ANN ARBOR R. R. CO. Elements of classification. Possibility of misbilling as element of classification. Volume of tonnage as factor in rates. Market competition as factor in rates. Cited: ICC 25-474 26-474 Vol. 18 I. C. C. CITATIONS. Page 208 HOUSTON STRUCTURAL STEEL CO. v. WABASH R. R. CO. Basis of charges for transportation of long or bulky articles. Increased charges for furnishing special equipment. Cited: ICC 20-417 22-469 23-398 212 AMERICAN CREOSOTE WORKS v. ILLINOIS CENTRAL R. R. CO. Unjust discrimination in rates for one shipper not applicable to all. Unjust discrimination in matter of estimated weights. Rates based on use to which commodity is put. Evidence of unreasonableness — Contracts made by shipper in reliance on rate. Commission has no jurisdiction to award tort damages. Cited: ICC 19-314 234 SCHULTZ-HENSEN COMPANY v. SOUTHERN PACIFIC CO. Carrier's duty as to loading and unloading carload freight. Carrier's right to unload freight to release equipment. Carrier may make charge for any service rendered riot connected with transportation. Carrier's duty to publish charges for and any service to be performed. Presumptions arising from long-continued practice or usage of carriers. Cited: ' 232 JJ.' S. 216. 242 KIEL WOODENWARE COMPANY v. C, M. & ST. P. RY. CO. Liability of carrier for damages for failure to post tariff changing rate. Cited; ICC 19-108 181 Fed. 319. 25-41 27-627 249 FLATTEN PRODUCE COMPANY v. K. L. S. & C. RY. CO. Liability of carrier for failure to follow routing instructions. All carriers participating in overcharge should share in refund. Reparation for damage due to misrouting. Cited: ICC 20-543 259 DELRAY SALT COMPANY v. PENNSYLVANIA RAILROAD CO. Established rate inaking methods to be applied alike to all traffic be- tween same points. Cited: ICC 20-539 29-465 261 H. ROSENBLAT'T & SONS v. CHICAGO & N. W. RY. CO. Rates on cotton piece goods. Joint rate should not exceed sum of locals. Application of proper rate under tariff. Cited: ICC 20-447 271 UTICA TRAFFIC BUREAU v. N. Y. C. & H, R. R. R. CO Undue discrimination in withdrawal of assistance in unloading freight Carrier competition may justify discrimination in granting loading and unloading facilities. Carrier may make charge for any non-transportation service rendered Carrier not guilty of discrimination against territory not served by it Cited: ICC 18-239 I. C. C. CITATIONS. Vol. 18 Page 280 In re SUBSTITUTION OF TONNAGE AT TRANSIT POINTS. Unlawful practices connected with transit privileges. Legality of substitution of tonnage in transit. Unlawful discrimination in re substitution of tonnage in transit. .Carrier's duty and responsibility to initiate rates. Extent of carrier's duty in policing transit privileges. Duty of carrier to collect lawful charges. Reversed: 197 Fed. 58. Cited: ICC 18-515 23-174 24-340 19-436 23-365 26-324 19-569 23-441 28-365 21-186 23-444 cc 191 Fed. 37. 299 OHIO IRON & METAL COMPANY v. WABASH R. R. CO. Carrier's duty to forward shipment via cheapest route. Shippers are presumed to know lawful rate. No reparation may be awarded on basis of misquoted rates. Unreasonableness is not established by showing of lower rate via an- other line. Cited: ICC 19-296 310 ASSOCIATED JOBBERS OF LOS ANGELES v. A. T. & S. FE RY. CO. Extent of transportation service covered by rate of freight. Terminal facilities subject to provisions of Act. Distinction between terminal and plant facilities. Principles governing establishment of switch connections. Extent of carrier's duty to make industry track delivery. Terminal charges comprehend services rendered after delivery. Cartage as accessorial transportation service. Carrier entitled to extra compensation for delivery on industrial tracks. Construction of tariffs as to compel extra charge for like service. Delivery on side track is not substitution for delivery on public team tracks. Reversed: 188 Fed. 229. Sustained: 234 U. S. 294; 56 L. Ed. 1319; 34 S. C. 814. Cited: ICC 18-333 23-372 352 COORS v. SOUTHERN PACIFIC COMPANY. Rate on bottle caps from Baltimore to Denver. Presumptions arising from voluntary reduction of rate. . Practice — Sufficiency of evidence to establish unreasonableness of rate. Cited: ICC 18-354 360 KENTUCKY WAGON MANUFACTURING CO. v. I. C. R. R. CO. Potential as well as actual water competition justifies low rates. Water competition as factor in Pacific coast rates. Presumptions arising from rate being reduced. Cited: ICC 24-417 364 H. GUND & CO. v. CHICAGO, BURLINGTON & QUINCY R. R. CO. Bulk grain storage and elevation as part of transportation service. Reasonableness of elevation allowances. Merchandising of grain no part of carrier's duty. Joint through rate in excess of combination of locals. Finality of Commission's findings. Cited: ICC 25-326 222 U. S. 47. Vol. 18 I. C. C. CITATIONS. Page 389 NATIONAL REFINING COMPANY v. A. T. & S. FE RY. CO. Reparation on shipments of petroleum from Coflfeyville, Kans., to Enid, Okla. Complaint not asking for reparation does not stop running of statute of limitations. Practice — Payment of charges under protest not condition precedent to right of reparation. Cited: ICC 24-279 391 C. E. FERGUSON SAW MILL CO. v. ST. L., I. M. & S. RY. CO. Rates on cypress lumber from Arkansas points. Principles governing establishment of blanket rates. Blanket rates should not ignore geographical location of points of pro- duction. Practice — Although blanket rates held reasonable complaint will lie against particular rates. Cited: ICC 18-398 21-465 396 C. E. FERGUSON SAW MILL CO. v. S. L., I. M. & S. RY. CO. Rates on cypress lumber from Arkansas points. Classification of cypress and yellow pine lumber. Theory and justification of blanket rates. Blanket rates should not ignore geographical location of points of pro- duction. Cited: ICC 18-394 23-229 40S ANDY'S RIDGE COAL COMPANY v. SOUTHERN RAILWAY CO. Coal rates from points in Tennessee to Georgia and Florida points. Differentials in rates between various coal fields. State-made rates as factor in interstate rates. Weight to be given long established rates in determining reasonableness of rates. Distance as factor in rates. Cost of production as element in rates. Carrier competition as factor in rates. Market competition as factor in rates. Welfare of consumer as factor in rates. Cited: ICC 21-224 24-102 21-235 27-662 23-50 29-700 414 TIOGA COAL COMPANY v. C, R. I. & P. RY. CO. Demurrage charges cannot be collected under ambiguous tariff. Wrongful assessment of demurrage on shipment held in transit account non-payment of charges. Demurrage charges cannot be collected where shipper not at fault Cited: ICC 20-559 415 SAUNDERS v. SOUTHERN EXPRESS COMPANY. Relative express rates between Pensacola, Fla., and Mobile, Ala Carrier must not discriminate between sets of shippers as to rates Presumption of reasonableness in State-made rates. Relation of intrastate and interstate state rates as creating unjust dis- crimination. Cited: ICC 23-49 23-54 I. C. C. CITATIONS. Vol. 18 Page 427 ROSE V. BOSTON & ALBANY RAILROAD COMPANY. Relation between rates on motorcycles and bicycles. Articles requiring same transportation service entitled to same rating. Cited: ICC 26-128 430 L. W. BLINN LUMBER CO. v. SOUTHERN PACIFIC CO. Construction of bill of lading. Reparation — Carrier's waiver of collection will not expand shipper's rights. Statute of limitation commences to run from date of delivery of shipment. Cited: ICC 18-439 24-364 193 Fed. 668. 19-492 25-267 193 Fed. 674. 21-216 26-356 21-460 27-59 440 RECEIVERS' & SHIPPERS' ASSO. OF CINCINNATI v. C. N. O. & T. P. RY. CO. Relation of rates between Ohio and Mississippi River Crossings' to Southeast points. Water routes govern rates from Atlantic coast to Southern points. Motive of carriers in establishing reasonable rates immaterial. Short-line mileage and lowest cost of service not sole measure of rea- sonableness of rates. Carrier's right to fair return upon value of property. Distance as factor in rates. Rate should be such as will move the traffic. Weight to be given previous decision of Commission. Sustained: 188 Fed. 242. Reversed: 225 U. S. 302; 56 L. Ed. 1099; 32 S. C. 769, Cited: ICC 21-417 28-183 24-586 29-483 26-181 27-150 485 DULUTH & IRON RANGE R. R. CO. v. C, ST. P., M. & O. RY. CO. Initial carrier's responsibility for misrouting of shipment. All carriers participating in overcharge required to make refund. Carrier's duty to route shipm'ent over reasonable and direct line. Cited: ICC 18-495 19-294 19-346 502 COLUMBIA GROCERY COMPANY v. L. & N. R. R. CO. Sugar rates from New Orleans. Rate system built upon Nashville as the basic point. System of rate structure should be applied alike to all localities simil- larly situated. Locality entitled to advantages of natural location. Commission not estopped from acting because adjustment will require change in other rates. Rail and water competition as factors in rates. Cited: ICC 23-149 197 Fed. 65. 28-452 517 THEO. FATHAUER COMPANY v. ST. L., I. M. & S. RY. CO. Allowances to tap lines. Tap line not a common carrier. Reparation — Informal complaint stops running of statute of limitation. Reparation — Payment of charges necessary condition precedent to award. Cited: ICC 23-308 Vol. 18 I. C. C. CITATIONS. Page 532 COMMERCIAL CLUB OF OMAHA v. A. & S. R. RY. CO. Lumber' rates from Southern producing points to Omaha. Rates advanced to avoid reducing other rates. State-made rates a factor in interstate rates. Competition compelled rates as measure of reasonableness. Ability of traftic to move as test of reasonableiaess of rates. Cited: ICC 19-334 19-419 24-178 27-302 ' 540 DAVIES V. LOUISVILLE & NASHVILLE R. R. CO. Shipper's duty to load and furnish dunnage on carload shipments. Carrier entitled to receive compensation for service in loading. Practice — Findings will be confined to averments in complaint. Cited: ICC 25-495 545 SUNDERLAND BROTHERS CO. v. ST. L. & S. F. R. R. CO. Minimum weight on carload shipments of lime. Principles involved in establishing minimum weights. Usages and practices should have general application. Cited: ICC 23-259 548 WILBURNE OIL WORKS v. PENNSYLVANIA RAILROAD CO. Rate in one direction exceeding that in opposite direction between same points. No reparation for misrouting where carrier follows shipper's instructions. Cited: ICC 28-620 554 SERRY v. SOUTHERN PACIFIC COMPANY. Lumber rate from Oregon City, Ore., to Cripple Creek, Colo. Proportional rate may be lower than corresponding local. Limiting application of proportional rate according to point of origin of shipment. Cited: ICC 28-389 28-532 562 LEAGUE OF SOUTHERN IDAHO COMMERCIAL CLUBS v. O. S. L. R. R. CO. Coal rates from Wyoming points to Idaho points. Relative rates to main and branch line points. Value of commodity as factor in rates. Fourth Section — Application of long-distance point rate to intermedi- ate points. Cited: ICC 24-216 27-524 572 COLORADO COAL TRAFFIC ASSO. v. COL. & SOUTHERN RY. CO. Coal rates from Walsenburg, Colo., district to Nebraska points. Rates should not equalize production cost of commodity. Competition as factor in rates. Parity of rates from competing localities to competing and non-compet- ing points. Natural advantage of location as factor in rates. Cited: ICC 26-650 28-262 I. C. C. CITATIONS. Vol. 19 Page 593 NATIONAL PETROLEUM ASSO. v. MISSOURI PACIFIC RY. CO. Rates on petroleum and products from Coffeyville, Kans., to Memphis and Omaha. Carrier cannot discriminate against community not served by it. Relative rates between competing communities. Cited r ICC 21-573 23-352 24-315 28-708 601 HIGHLAND IRON & STEEL CO. v. VANDALIA R. R. CO. Iron rates from Terre Haute, Ind. Relative rates between competing communities. Presumptions arising from long continued rates. Cited: ICC 18-604 VOLUME 19. 1910—1911. 15 LULL CARRIAGE COMPANY v. C. K. & S. RY. CO. Minimum weights on carload shipments are part of rates. Different minima applicable to local and through rates. Through rate should not exceed sum of locals. Cited: ICC 22-198 18 BAER BROS. MERCANTILE CO. v. MISSOURI PACIFIC RY. CO. Rate on beer from St. Louis to Leadville, Colo. Ruling follows Baer Bros. Merc. Co. v. M. P. Ry. Co., 17 I. C. C. Rep. 225. Cited: ICC cc 17-225 cc 187 Fed. 485. cc 200- Fed. 614. cc 209 Fed. 577. cc 233 U- S. 479. 54 NORTHERN LUMBER MANUFACTURING CO. v. T. & P. RY. CO. Demurrage charges accruing pending settlement of dispute as to rate. Cited: ICC 21-238 56 CHAPPELLE v. LOUISVILLE & NASHVILLE R. R. CO. Rates for transportation of private passenger and baggage cars. Equipment of theatrical company held to be baggage. Distinction between baggage and combination cars. Commission's power to regulate rates on private equipment. Commission hesitates to reduce rate unless clearly excessive. Cited: ICC 19-456 79 SOUTHERN COTTON OIL CO. v. SOUTHERN RAILWAY CO. Carrier's duty to secure shipper's signature to released valuation clause. Released rates not applicable unless shipper signs contract. Cited: ICC 20-130 25-444 25-447 Vol. 19 I. C. C. CITATIONS. Page 81 In re JURISDICTION OVER RAIL AND WATER CARRIERS IN ALASKA. Commission has no jurisdiction in Alaska. Commission has only such powers clearly conferred by statute. Reversed: 39 Wash. Law. Rep. 386; 37 App. D. C. 266; 224 U. S. 474; 56 L. Ed. 849; 32 S. C. 556. Cited: ICC 19-105 105 HUMBOLDT STEAMSHIP CO. v. WHITE PASS & YUKON ROUTE. Commission has no jurisdiction over Alaska railroads. Reversed: 38 Wash. Law. Rep. 386; 37 App. D. C. 266; 224 U. S. 474; 56 L. Ed. 849; 32 S. C. 556. Cited: ICC cc 19-81 25-136 108 CANADIAN VALLEY GRAIN CO. v. C, R. I. & P. RY. CO. Liability of carrier for failure to post tariff changing rate. Cited: ICC 25-41 119 SAGINAW & MANISTEE LUMBER CO. v. A. T. & S. FE RY. CO. Arizona lumber rates. Undue preference cannot be based on rate lower than is inherently reasonable. Distance as factor in rate. Cost of production of commodity as factor in rates. Cited: ICC 21-395 29-475 128 BANNER MILLING COMPANY v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. R. CO. Lake-and-rail rates on grain products. Rates advanced to avoid reducing other rates. Practice — Change of conditions since decision or new facts not formerly considered are grounds for rehearing. Cited: ICC 20-506 24-104 24-188 148 ARLINGTON HEIGHTS FRUIT EXCHANGE v. S. PACIFIC CO. Rates on lemons from California points. Elements determining reasonableness of rate on oranges from California. Foreign competition as factor in rates. Extent of Commission's power to establish rates. What constitutes- special train service. Refrigeration and ventilation as varying cost of service. Reversed: 190 Fed. 591. Cited: ICC 20-106 cc 22-150 cc 175 Fed. 141. 20-637 23-28 cc 182 Fed. 189. 20-639 24-671 cc 191 Fed. 101. cc 203 Fed. 56. 232 U. S. 200. 156 COMMERCIAL CLUB OF OMAHA v. CHICAGO & N. W RY CO Lumber rates from Omaha to Northwestern points. Distance as measure of reasonableness of rates. Preference in transit privileges on lumber. Relation between rates on main and branch lines Cited: ICG 22-230 I. C. C. CITATIONS. Vol. 19 Page 162 CITY OF SPOKANE v. NORTHERN PACIFIC RY. CO. Rates from Eastern territory to Spokane territory. Water competition between Atlantic and Pacific seaboards as affecting interior points. Establishment of new through routes to Spokane. Right of carrier to earn fair return on value of investment. Cost of production of commodity as factor in rates. Comparison of scale of rates East and West of Missouri River. Carrier's right to meet water competition. Relation between cost of service on main and branch lines as justifying disparity in rates. Rates restricting zone of market. Development of country as factor in determining reasonableness of ad- vanced rates. , Commercial conditions should be considered in fixing rates. Fourth Section — Intermediate rates must be reasonable. Rate compelled by water competition not measure of reasonableness. , Practice — Complaint must make specific attack on specific rates. Cited: ICC 19-223 23-153 19-255 23-454 19-271 28-87 19-284 28-197 21-402 28-210 218 COM. CLUB OF SALT LAKE CITY v. A. T. & S. FE RY. CO. Rates to and from Utah common points. Differentials between rates to Colorado and Utah points. Increased development of country as affecting rates. Standard of comparison to be used as test for reasonableness of rates. Comparison of basis of rates East and West of Mississippi River. Origin of traffic as factor in rates. Distance as factor in rates. Cost of service as an element in rates. Relation of rate to volume of traffic. Application of blanket rates cannot be allowed to impose unjust rates. Reasonableness of passenger rates. Cited: ICC 19-171 23-162 27-686 28-420 19-284 23-696 28-84 29-544 21-402 24-576 28-199 23-117 24-656 28-210 23-153 26-472 28-225 238 RAILROAD COMMISSION OF NEVADA v. SOUTHERN PAC. CO. Class rates from Eastern points to Nevada. Basis of construction of Transcontinental and intermediate rates. Fourth Section — Reasonableness of rates to intermediate points. Increased development of country as factor in rates. Natural advantage of location as factor in rates. Water competition as factor in Pacific coast rates. Division of joint rate as test of reasonableness of through rates. Comparison of rates in different section of country as test of reasonable- ness of rates. Relation of class to commodity rates. Volume of tonnage as factor in rates. Method of stating rates by an alternative clause condemned. Cited: ICC 19-171 21-6 24-584 19-258 21-331 26-579 19-262 21-417 28-1 19-284 23-696 28-197 Vol. 19 I. C. C. CITATIONS. __^ 257 MARICOPA COUNTY COM. CLUB v. S. FE, P. & P. RY. CO. Class rates from Eastern points to points in Arizona. Locality entitled to advantage of natural location in rate adjustment. Cited: ICC 19-284 23-153 20-13 23-376 21-331 28-1 22-280 28-197 259 TRAFFIC BUREAU OF SAN FRANCISCO v. SOUTHERN PAC. CO. Class rates from Sacramento to Eastern points. Local rates are not to be made with reference to cost of operation of branch line over which they apply. Cost of operation of entire system factor in determining reasonableness of branch line local rates. Cited: ICC 20-425 23-696 27-94 29-569 265 PORTLAND CHAMBER OF COMMERCE v. O. R. R. & N. CO. Back-haul rates from Noflh Pacific Coast terminal points.. Cost of production of commodity as factor in rates. Relationship between rates and right of carrier to earn return on investment. Increased development of country as factor in rates. Cited: ICC 21-640 285 ST. PAUL BOARD OF TRADE v. M., ST. P. & S. S. M. RY. CO. Transit privileges on butter and eggs. Proportional rate conditioned on carrier receiving haul into concentra- tion point. Transit privileges must be covered inbound and outbound tariff rates. Cited: ICC 23-444 303 CORPORATION COMMISSION OF NO. CAR. v. N. & W. RY. CO. Relative rates between Virginia cities and North Carolina points. Business investment relying on rate. Locality entitled to benefit of natural advantage of location in rate adjustment. Duty of Commission to consider relative eflfect of proposed change in rates. Establishment of group rates does not justify unjust discrimination. Distance as factor in rates. Carrier competition as factor in determining reasonableness of rates. Relationship between rates on branch and main lines. Sustained: 195 Fed. 953. Cited: ICC cc 16-12 22-525 26-147 26-625 29-558 323 HARBOR CITY WHOLESALE CO. v. SOUTHERN PACIFIC CO. San Pedro, Calif., entitled to Pacific coast terminal rates. Water competition as factor in Pacific coast rates. Competition compelled rate as measure of reasonableness. Carrier cannot be compelled to meet competition. Locality entitled to benefit of natural advantage of location. I. C. C. CITATIONS. Vol. 19 Page 323 Difference in commercial importance of community cannot be made basis for discrimination. Community treated as separate entity from transportation standpoint regardless of municipal boundary lines. Cited: ICC 21-417 27-6S9 348 FREEMAN LUMBER COMPANY v. ST. L., I. M. & S. RY. CO. Lumber rates from Arkansas to Missouri River points. Differential rates on yellow pine and cypress over hardwood lumber. Cited: ICC 20-612 23-231 354 ULLMAN v. AMERICAN EXPRESS COMPANY. Reparation — Principles governing allowance of damages. Reparation must be claimed to secure award. Practice—Complainant required to present case in its entirety. Presumption arising from rate being reduced. Cited: ICC 23-253 356 HILLSDALE COAL & COKE CO. v. PENNSYLVANIA R. R. CO. Mine rating system of car distribution. Shipper entitled to an equal or justly ratable use of carrier's facilities. Carrier's duty to furnish suflScient equipment. Basis of car distribution is a regulation affecting rates within mean- ing of Act. Owner of private cars entitled to exclusive use thereof. Effect of carrier closing switch and refusing to place cars thereon. Commission's jurisdiction over car-distribution rules is absolute. Commission is without jurisdiction to award tort, damages. Application of rule of stare decisis. Sustained: 193 Fed. 81 Cited: ICC 19-392 cc 176 Fed. 748. 20-53 cc 183 Fed. 937. 23-188 cc 200 Fed. 992. 23-464 cc 230 U. S. 312. 25-288 392 JACOBY & COMPANY v. PENNSYLVANIA RAILROAD CO. Mine rate system of car distribution. Special allotment of "assigned cars" unlawful discrimination. Private cars should be considered in pro rata share of mine owning them. Sustained: 193 Fed. 81. Cited: ICC 20-53 cc 176 Fed. 748. 23-188 cc 183 Fed. 929. cc 200 Fed. 989. cc 230 U. S. 312. 409 In re REDUCED RATES ON RETURNED SHIPMENTS. Reduced rates for returned transportation of shipments refused by consignees. Value of commodity as factor in rates. Theory of transit privileges. Previous haul of shipment as factor in reasonableness of rates. Cited: ICC 23-432 23-445 Vol. 19 I. C. C. CITATIONS. Page 419 COMMERCIAL CLUB OF OMAHA v. A. & S. R. RY. CO. Practice — Commission will not reconsider decision on same state of facts. Cited: ICC 27-305 424 OMAHA GRAIN EXCHANGE v. CHICAGO & N. W. RY. CO. Relation between grain rates to Omaha and Minneapolis. Competition as factor in determining reasonableness of rates. Carrier not liable for undue preference in re community not served by it. Distance as factor in rates. Cited: ICC 21-24 24-98 24-110 24-124 458 GREEN v. ALABAMA GREAT SOUTHERN RAILROAD CO. Relation between rates on hickory spokes and hardwood lumber. Cited: ICC 27-380 460 A. P. MORGAN GRAIN CO. v. ATLANTIC COAST LINE R. R. CO. Relation of rates between Ohio and Mississippi River Crossings to Southeast points. Right of carrier to earn fair return on investment. Competition compelled rates as measure of reasonableness. Relationship between rates on branch and main lines. Presumptions arising from long-maintained adjustment of rates. Cited: ICC 23-185 28-183 29-484 478 COLORADO COAL TRAFFIC ASSO. v. COL. & SOUTHERN RY. CO. Reconsignment of freight a privilege and not a right. Commission will not extend reconsignment privileges except to correct unjust discrimination. Cited: ICC 23-122 25-98 493 WEBSTER GROCERY CO. v. C. & N. W. RY. CO. Joint rate should not exceed sum of locals. Cited: ICC 21-20 513 PONCHATOULA FARMERS ASSO. v. ILL. CENTRAL R. R. CO. Minimum weight on strawberries from Ponchatoula, La., to Chicago. Shipper's load and count stipulation. Rule requiring shippers to count packages of perishable freight. Minimum weight to be applied to mixed carload shipments. Relationship between minimum weight and rate of freight. Carrier's duty in re furnishing unloading facilities. Tests to be applied in determining reasonableness of rates. Rates cannot be adjusted to correspond with fluctuating value of com- modity. Ability of traffic to move under rates as test of reasonableness. Ambiguity in tariffs. Commission is without jurisdiction to award tort damages. Construction of "owner's risk" rule. Cited: ICC 25-492 28-636 I. C. C. CITATIONS. Vol. 19 Page 522 GEORGE M. SPIEGLE & COMPANY v. SOUTHERN RY. CO. Discrimination in milling-in-transit charge on lumber. Limitation on carrier's right to meet railroad competition. 22-82 25-72 2S-88 S30 HYDRAULIC PRESS BRICK CO. v. MOBILE & OHIO R. R. CO. Relative rates on different makes of brick. Volume of tonnage as factor in rates. Cited: ICC 2S-148 26-474 533 ST. LOUIS HAY & GRAIN CO. v. MOBILE & OHIO R. R. CO. Reasonableness of charge at East St. Louis for reconsignment of hay. Carrier entitled to fair profit in charge for transit privilege. Cited: ICC 25-77 535 TRAUGOTT, SCHMIDT & SONS v. MICH. CENTRAL R. R. CO. Wool rates Chicago and Detroit to Eastern markets. Absolute equality impossible in blanket rates. Policy of Commission to curtail transit privileges. Carrier cannot be guilty of undue preference in re community not served by it. Cited: ICC 21-639 23-163 23-352 23-685 25-192 551 WYMAN, PARTRIDGE & CO. v. BOSTON & MAINE R. R. CO. Marine insurance as factor in rates. Reparation for insurance rate charged but not given. Reparation — Proper parties to make refund. Cited: ICC 27-642 556 PROCTOR & GAMBLE COMPANY v. C, H. & D. RY. CO. Demurrage on privately owned cars. Private cars standing on owner's tracks liable for demurrage. When a privately owned car is in public service. Sustained: 188 Fed. 221. Reversed: 225 U. S. 282; 56 L. Ed. 1091; 32 S. C. 761. Cited: ICC 23-534 561 CROMBIE & COMPANY v. SOUTHERN PACIFIC COMPANY. Commodity rate removes article from classified list. Commodity rate should be applied strictly. Cited: ICC 25-233 592 ANACONDA COPPER MINING CO. v. CHICAGO & ERIE R. R. CO. Coke rates from West Virginia-Pennsylvania ovens to Western points. Rates based upon use to which commodity is put. Preferential rates should not be given trainloads over carloads. Reparation — Award will not be made unless complainant has been damaged. Vol. 20 I. C. C. CITATIONS. Page Practice — Allegations of complaint must be sustained by evidence. Cited: ICC 21-40 27-126 21-41 27-152 21-215 29-665 26-357 598 BREESE-TRENTON MINING CO. v. WABASH RAILROAD CO. Coal rates' from East St. Louis to Omaha. Rate established for competitive reasons not measure of reasonableness. Cited: ICC 20-227 611 BURGESS V. TRANSCONTINENTAL FREIGHT BUREAU. Informal reparation order. Cited: ICC 27-323 cc 190 Fed. 659. 193 Fed. 678. VOLUME 20. 1911. 3 CITY OF ASHLAND v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. R. CO. Relation 'between rail-lake-andrrail Fed 185 81 Fed 546 7 ICC 553 7 ICC 554 88 Fed 588 103 Fed 249 83 Fed 255 17 ICC 242 cc 7 ICC 513 83 Fed 611 cc 7 ICC 555 90 Fed 683 cc 10 ICC 83 74 Fed 79 8 ICC 642 20 ICC 339 cc 11 ICC 238 20 ICC 339 82 Fed 192 cc 11 ICC 277 20 ICC 341 cc 5 ICC 415 93 Fed 83 cc 11 ICC 295 142 Fed 188 cc 5 ICC 324 cc 12 ICC 507 74 Fed 522 208 U S 214 9 ICC 239 164 Fed 639 7 ICC 456 141 Fed 1004 164 Fed 644 8 ICC 521 82 Fed 1002 141 Fed 1016 a 186 U S 320 cc 4 ICC 535 m 181 US 29 186 U S 334 s 27 CCA 681 181 US 31 186 U S 335 CITATION OF FEDERAL CASES. 105 Fed 703 122 Fed 800 137 Fed 343 148 Fed 1021 cc 6 ICC 588 8 ICC 409 cc 5 ICC 415 . cc 10 ICC 548 141 Fed 1017 11 ICC 128 cc 6 ICC 378 s 79 CCA 535 21 ICC 408 153 Fed 733 106 Fed 7 s 60 CCA 540 190 Fed 662 149 Fed 609 20 ICC 339 d 195 US 639 191 Fed 486 cc 11 ICC 90 192 Fed 342 153 Fed 728 108 Fed 313 123 Fed 597 200 Fed 617 s 214 U S 299 17 ICC 242 cc 9 ICC 182 207 Fed 724 17 ICC 245 iO ICC 592 211 Fed 791 149 Fed 973 132 Fed 829 211 Fed 794 13 ICC 338' 108 Fed 988 132 Fed 836 a 208 U S 208 cc 7 ICC 431 132 Fed 847 151 Fed 694 s 46 CCA 685 s 200 U S 536 138 Fed 753 14 ICC 174 200 U S 542 cc 10 ICC 548 109 Fed 831 14 ICC 39 152 Fed 269 10 ICC 245 123 Fed 789 148 Fed 1021 26 ICC 623 10 ICC 246 10 ICC 555 151 Fed 843 13 ICC 81 159 Fed 556 153 Fed 1 19 ICC 364 124 Fed 624 159 Fed 557 13 ICC 278 cc 9 ICC 118 163 Fed 749 112 Fed 823 11 ICC 128 165 Fed 7 153 Fed 728 10 ICC 191 200 Fed 617 165 Fed 23 cc 11 ICC 90 165 Fed 678 191 Fed 487 115 Fed 373 26 ICC 623 125 Fed 252 165 Fed 679 r 214. U S 297 13 ICC 82 170 Fed 233 19 ICC 364 a 206 U S 428 153 Fed 997 cc 11 ICC 438 117 Fed 741 125 Fed 445 138 Fed 764 cc 8 ICC 409 10 ICC 245 14 ICC 39 154 Fed 108 a 122 Fed 800 10 ICC 247 12 ICC 405 10 ICC 248 141 Fed 1003 13 ICC 446 118 Fed 113 10 ICC 647 cc 10 ICC 428 19 ICC 364 10 ICC 192 11 ICC 454 16 ICC 593 11 ICG 580 21 ICC 506 154 Fed 379 126 Fed 252 153 Fed 18 15 ICC 258 118 Fed 169 13 ICC 82 a 209 U S 108 15 ICC 625 10 ICC 245 10 ICC 247 127 Fed 785 143 Fed 266 154 Fed 497 10 ICC 248 12 ICC 100 19 ICC 364 12 ICC 407 10 ICC 647 12 ICC 106 13 ICC 445 11 ICC 454 12 ICC 109 143 Fed 350 19 ICC 362 14 ICC 453 13 ICC 585 118 Fed 613 cc 8 ICC 377 11 ICC 381 17 irC 590 129 Fed 753 10 ICC 245 10 ICC 248 144 Fed 861 13 ICC 585 155 Fed 849 15 ICC 172 156 Fed 558 -1/ 1^^ j^yj 19 ICC 75 132 Fed 829 145 Fed 405 14 ICC 628 21 ICC 26 cc 9 ICC 182 13 ICC 271 18 ICC 313 123 Fed 603 138 Fed 760 10 ICC 578 10 ICC 592 145 Fed 438 157 Fed 321 10 ICC 615 13 ICC 585 13 ICC 277 120 Fed 934 137 Fed 354 145 Fed 1007 13 ICC 584 8 ICC 503 12 ICC 497 s 137 Fed 606 r 200 U S 536 14 ICC 427 158 Fed 649 13 ICC 561 21 ICC 408 •9 n a f^ ^ 4 r\i-% 146 Fed 559 s 57 CCA 224 d 195 U S 638 134 Fed 198 13 ICC 82 19 ICC 364 cc 9 ICC 440 s 206 U S 142 161 Fed 606 14 ICC 430 121 Fed 915 134 Fed 942 148 Fed 719 14 ICC 174 162 Fed 354 9 ICC 626 cc 9 ICC 264 23 ICC 487 cc 21 ICC 129 14 ICC 430 19 ICC 36 cc 23 ICC 480 14 ICC 442 142 Fed 188 148 Fed 894 175 Fed 320 14 ICC 455 a 202 U S 613 15 ICC 257 CITATION OF FEDERAL CASES. 163 Fed 114 173 Fed 930 179 Fed 243 190 Fed 656 cc 12 ICC 15 cc 13 ICC 451 cc 17 ICC 239 cc 13 ICC 657 16 ICC 249 19 ICC 372 191 Fed 40 16 ICC 518 176 Fed 756 s 230 U S 324 190 Fed 659 a 219 USW86 176 Fed 758 cc 19 ICC 611 r 215 U S 452 181 Fed 316 27 ICC 323 164 Fed 638 27 ICC 169 s 193 Fed 678 10 ICC 83 174 Fed 687 207 Fed 729 11 ICC 238 cc 17 ICC 149 181 Fed 403 11 ICC 277 20 ICC 433 190 Fed 1023 11 ICC 296 175 Fed"320 22 ICC 199 cc 21 ICC 129 12 ICC 507 cc 21 ICC 129 cc 23 ICC 480 164 Fed 650 cc 23 ICC 480 183 Fed 929 cc 204 Fed 986 176 Fed 418 s 211 Fed 785 23 ICC 188 176 Fed 422 191 Fed 37 a 215 US 98 176 Fed 409 183 Fed 1005 cc 16 ICC 590 10 ICC 309 23 ICC 440 cc 18 ICC 280 164 Fed 645 12 ICC 85 cc 21 ICC 186 cc 13 ICC 418 14 ICC 315 184 Fed 118 174 Fed 690 14 ICC 317 cc 17 ICC 231 191 Fed 40 176 Fed 418 14 ICC 510 186 Fed 189 cc 17 ICC 239 184 Fed 807 14 ICC 551 15 ICC 90 s 195 Fed 542 r 24 ICC 25 230 U S 324 165 Fed 113 18 ICC 336 184 Fed 765 19 ICC 390 25 ICC 330 24 ICC 98 191 Fed 482 178 Fed 226 27 ICC 654 -cc 16 ICC 341 166 Fed 134 188 Fed 227 s 112 CCA 126 cc 14 ICC 250 193 Fed 678 194 Fed 451 187 Fed 403 23 ICC 60 193 Fed 680 166 Fed 498 197 Fed 64 191 Fed 705 cc 14 ICC 191 200 Fed 792 187 Fed 485 cc IS ICC 170 169 Fed 894 207 Fed 744 cc 13 ICC 329 s 195 Fed 18 a 216 U S 531 209 Fed 253 cc 17 ICC 225 m 222 U S 42 cc 19 ICC 18 191 Fed 856 166 Fed 499 27 ICC 314 cc 21 ICC 329 cc 14 ICC 437 176 Fed 748 s 109 CCA 337 cc 21 ICC 400 r 220 U S 235 cc cc 19 ICC 356 .19 ICC 392 r 233 U S 479 205 Fed 390 207 Fed 593 168 Fed 131 19 ICC 372 187 Fed 847 cc 14 ICC 356 19 ICC 385 23 ICC 187 cc IS ICC 170 192 Fed 280 23 ICC 443 168 Fed 542 181 Fed 410 188 Fed 221 13 ICC 585 s 183 Fed 909 cc 19 ICC 556 193 Fed 81 183 Fed 929 193 Fed 665 cc 19 ICC 356 169 Fed 76 183 Fed 946 193 Fed 675 cc 19 ICC 392 18 ICC 368 192 Fed 476 200 Fed 654 r 225 US 282 205 Fed 387 169 Fed 404 200 Fed 990 188 Fed 229 193 Fed 682 20 ICC 569 177 Fed 493 cc 18 ICC 310 188 Fed 241 cc 13 ICC 657 193 Fed 680 171 Fed 680 20 ICC 339 197 Fed 65 cc 14 ICC 299 194 Fed 449 cc 15 ICC 555 177 Fed 963 188 Fed 242 cc 17 ICC 430 21 ICC 548 cc 14 ICC 61 cc 18 ICC 440 203 Fed 57 23 ICC 196 188 Fed 256 a 178 Fed 261 178 Fed 223 r 225 U S 302 195 Fed 88 r 218 U S 88 cc 10 ICC 309 26 ICC 171 s 218 U S 95 cc 12 ICC 85 188 Fed 405 r 218 US 113 cc 14 ICC 315 23 ICC 423 195 Fed 541 cc 14 ICC 317 cc 17 ICC 231 173 Fed 1 cc 14 ICC 510 190 Fed 591 203 Fed 57 20 ICC 433 15 ICC 90 cc 19 ICC 148 22 ICC 199 s 101 CCA 583 cc 22 ICC 149 195 Fed 953 A^Arf X x^ ^^ ^ ^ ^ 202 Fed 849 22 ICC 150 cc 19 ICC 303 a 222 U S 215 cc 203 Fed 57 CITATION OF FEDERAL CASES. 195 Fed 962 200 Fed 652 204 Fed 647 209 Fed 238 cc 20 JCC 486 cc 14 ICC 619 cc 20 ICC 100 cc 15 ICC 248 26 ICC 230 s 207 Fed 734 cc 23 ICC 267 cc 17 ICC 514 a 226 U S 14 209 Fed 250 a 232 U S 199 27 ICC 277 28 ICC 120 195 Fed 968 200 Fed 779 204 Fed 798 29 ICC 229 cc 13 ICC 329 cc 17 ICC 40 cc 24 ICC 1 209 Fed 250 cc 17 ICC 225 cc 20 ICC 200 200 Fed 614 s 231 US 274 204 Fed 986 209 Fed 244 205 Fed 384 cc 21 ICC 129 cc 23 ICC 277 209 Fed 580 197 Fed 58 16 ICC 590 cc cc 200 Fed 797 17 ICC 552 22 ICC 11 • cc 205 Fed 380 23 ICC 31 205 Fed 391 cc cc 23 ICC 549 209 Fed 260 209 Fed 577 18 ICC 280 cc 13 ICC 329 21 ICC 186 200 Fed 989 207 Fed 591 cc 17 ICC 225 200 Fed 791 cc cc 19 ICC 356 19 ICC 392 cc 24 ICC 228 cc 19 ICC 18 200 Fed 187 cc 23 ICC 186 207 Fed 717 211 Fed 785 cc 16 ICC 382 200 Fed 614 203 Fed 137 203 Fed 56 cc cc 15 ICC 9 211 Fed 792 cc 21 ICC 129 211 Fed 792 cc 13 ICC 329 cc 22 ICC 149 207 Fed 733 cc IS ICC 9 cc 17 ICC 225 cc 14 ICC 619 cc 19 ICC 18 204 Fed 465 cc 17 ICC 40 213 Fed 135 a 209 Fed 577 cc 23 ICC 345 203 Fed 250 cc 21 ICC 45 UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT REPORTS. 5 Cranch 281 (9 US) 13 ICC 368 6 Cranch 307 (10 US) 14 JCC 89 2 Wheat 290 (15 US) 13 ICC 375 4 Wheat 518 (17 US) 2 ICC 189 5 ICC 261 9 Wheat 1 (22 US) 3 ICC 602 3 ICC 604 13 ICC 579 23 ICC 44 23 ICC 60 12 Wheat 419 (25 US) 13 ICC 581 6 Pet 61 (31 US) 17 ICC 509 11 Pet 420 (36 US) 15 ICC 392 14 Pet 178 (39 US) 17 ICC 368 15 Pet 141 (40 US) 12 ICC 45 3 How 636 (44 US) 17 ICC 247 6 How 344 (47 US) 13 ICC 552 15 ICC 623 7 How 283 (48 US) 2 ICC 483 8 How 121 (49 US) 13 ICC 368 10 How 72 (51 US) 13 ICC 368 13 ICC 374 12 How 299 (53 US) J4 ICC 174 12 How 319 (53 US) 14 ICC 174 13 How 429 (54 US) 5 ICC 262 13 ICC 368 13 How 518 (54 US) 1 ICC 259 15 How 198 (56 US) 13 ICC 375 15 How 467 (56 US) 13 ICC 375 2 Wall 173 (69 US) 13 ICC 368 3 Wall 107 (70 US) 13 ICC 552 5 Wall 1 (72 US) 3 ICC 608 5 Wall 541 (72 US) 13 ICC 368 7 Wall 514 (74 US) 13 ICC 368 8 Wall 342 (75 US) 9 ICC 204 13 ICC 552 CITATION OF FEDERAL CASES. 9 Wall 788 22 Wall 123 103 U S 480 116 U S 517 (76 US) (89 US) 5 ICC 24 3 ICC 603 5 ICC 176 1 ICC 547 6 ICC 7 5 ICC 433 104 U S 126 19 ICC 490 10 Wall 557 6 ICC 9 22 ICC 561 (77 US) 22 Wall 444 23 ICC 547 3 ICC 602 (89 US) 104 U S 216 28 ICC 699 8 ICC 531 5 ICC 255 15 ICC 202 8 ICC 549 117 U S 1 8 ICC 659 91 U S 275 105 U S 460 2 ICC 210 12 ICC 403 1 ICC 259 3 ICC 60S 3 ICC 588 13 ICC 333 3 ICC 589 13 ICC 579 93 U S 78 105 U S 470 10 ICC 374 19 ICC 490 12 ICC 45 3 ICC 604 14 ICC 425 16 ICC 248 11 Wall 164 93 U S 99 110 U S 667 23 ICC 422 (78 US) 3 ICC 604 2 ICC 187 27 ICC 255 5 ICC 24 2 ICC 219 94 U S 180 2 ICC 227 117 U S 355 12 Wall 262 15 ICC 625 4 ICC 273 6 ICC 475 (79 US) 9 ICC 206 15 ICC 623 94 U S 673 12 ICC 165 118 U S 90 5 ICC 176 23 ICC 421 21 ICC 412 12 Wall 418 27 ICC 259 (79 US) 95 U S 485 118 U S 379 1 ICC 259 12 ICC 249 111 U S 379 19 ICC 91 23 ICC 44 13 ICC 474 15 Wall 232 118 U S 557 (82 US) 96 U S 1 111 U S 382 3 ICC 602 3 ICC 101 3 ICC 604 13 ICC 474 3 ICC 607 3 ICC 605 4 ICC 315 96 U S 37 112 U S 331 13 ICC 581 15 Wall 454 15 ICC 202 6 ICC 104 14 ICC 174 (82 US) 13 ICC 553 IS ICC 413 5 ICC 257 97 U S 566 13 ICC 554 13 ICC 581 13 ICC 555 121 U S 27 15 Wall 500 13 ICC 556 10 ICC 104 (82 US) 98 U S 398 13 ICC 557 5 ICC 257 13 ICC 368 13 ICC 558 121 U S 230 13 ICC 559 3 ICC 603 16 Wall 603 99 U S 402 (83 US) 13 ICC 432 114 U S 196 122 U S 611 5 ICC 255 20 ICC 266 2 ICC 386 3 ICC 604 IS ICC 203 16 Wall 678 99 U S 700 7 ICC 160 123 U S 32 (83 US) 5 ICC 256 12 ICC 47 IS ICC 203 5 ICC 78 23 ICC 41 15 ICC 413 101 U S 129 123 U S 288 19 ICC 95 114 U S 270 3 ICC 60S 17 Wall 357 21 ICC 412 23 ICC 59 (84 US) 101 U S 433 13 ICC 552 13 ICC 368 114 U S 622 125 U S 465 13 ICC 562 23 ICC 45 13 ICC 582 101 U S 437 14 ICC 173 17 Wall 445 13 ICC 368 115 U S 587 (84 US) 4 ICC 273 127 U S 1 1 ICC 434 102 U S 452 10 ICC 374 3 ICC 604 6 ICC 388 11 ICC 137 6 ICC 389 115 U S 600 127 U S 640 102 U S 541 5 ICC 254 3 ICC 603 18 Wall 516 3 ICC 101 5 ICC 255 ' (85 US) 7 ICC 161 128 U S 1 11 ICC 702 116 U S 307 6 ICC 7 103 U S 80 5 ICC 257 21 ICC 411 5 ICC 259 CITATION OF FEDERAL CASES. 130 U S 396 66 Fed 479 162 US 204 13 ICC 592 28 ICC 646 71 Fed 673 169 U S 647 IS ICC 179 28 ICC 6SS 73 Fed 418 15 ICC 207 74 Fed 722 149 U S 680 15 ICC 210 130 U S 693 74 Fed 788 6 ICC 30 21 ICC 209 10 ICC 99 74 Fed 813 74 Fed 840 IS ICC 625 24 ICC 7 133 U S 587 Id Fed 185 149 U S 686 162 U S 184 12 ICC 249 76 Fed 190 26 ICC 223 cc 4 ICC 744 83 Fed 254 7 ICC 287 135 U S 100 83 Fed 255 149 U S 777 7 ICC 319 6 ICC 7 83 Fed 259 cc 2 ICC 162 7 ICC 320 13 ICC S82 83 Fed 260 7 ICC 356 83 Fed 261 149 U S 779 7 ICC 373 135 U S 443 84 Fed 262 cc 3 ICC 1 7 ICC 374 19 ICC 89 84 Fed 263 7 ICC 541 86 Fed 419 154 U S 204 8 ICC 287 135 U S 641 88 Fed 194 7 ICC 161 8 ICC 290 8 ICC 658 109 Fed 836 8 ICC 302 123 Fed 364 154 U S 362 8 ICC 362 136 U S 114 127 Fed 789 12 ICC 514 8 ICC 531 4 ICC 726 127 Fed 790 17 ICC 247 8 ICC 549 133 Fed 1011 20 ICC 339 11 ICC 128 139 U S 128 141 Fed 1003 20 ICC 344 11 ICC 575 1 ICC 190 141 Fed 1014 12 ICC 167 7 ICC S46 141 Fed 1015 156 U S 1 12 ICC 168 7 ICC 549 141 Fed 1019 11 ICC 453 13 ICC 177 7 ICC 555 147 Fed 63 13 ICC 271 10 ICC IBS 158 Fed 728 156 U S 649 13 ICC 334 20 ICC 126 159 Fed 978 8 ICC 480 13 ICC 578 161 Fed 611 26 ICC 30 13 ICC 592 142 U S 492 161 Fed 612 73 Fed 429 12 ICC 148 162 Fed 360 158 U S 41 74 Fed 720 165 Fed 20 13 ICC 368 74 Fed 787 143 U S 339 166 Fed 509 74 Fed 840 12 ICC 396 168 Fed 164 158 U S 48 76 Fed 184 168 Fed 165 13 ICC 368 n Fed 943 144 U S 47 168 Fed 167 81 Fed 784 15 ICC 206 170 Fed 149 158 U S 98 82 Fed 564 171 Fed 718 7 ICC 278 83 Fed 42 145 U S 192 176 Fed 424 9 ICC 219 83 Fed 251 4 IC 87 212 Fed 993 12 ICC 421 83 Fed 253 5 ICC 580 151 US 389 14 ICC 175 83 Fed 254 162 U S 197 16 ICC 481 83- Fed 255 145 U S 263 162 U S 204 18 ICC 433 83 Fed 259 3 ICC 465 162 U S 232 27 ICC 627 83 Fed 260 5 ICC 377 167 U S 493 83 Fed 613 7 ICC 541 167 U S 510 158 U S 601 83 Fed 904 7 ICC 658 168 U S 165 21 ICC 412 83 Fed 909 8 ICC 454 181 US 102 86 Fed 419 8 ICC 459 189 U S 290 159 U S 698 93 Fed 91 8 ICC 464 204 U S 439 cc 3 ICC 1 99 Fed 480 8 ICC 472 209 U S 119 101 Fed 782 8 ICC 479 230 U S 201 160 U S 514 101 Fed 783 12 ICC 96 230 U S 216 13 ICC 205 101 Fed 786 12 ICC 110 230 U S 223 118 Fed 625 14 ICC 429 230 U S 258 160 U S 598 127 Fed 792 14 ICC 430 230 U S 288 10 ICC 103 131 Fed 455 14 ICC 451 132 Fed 847 21 ICC 434 147 U S 647 162 U S 184 137 Fed 355 21 ICC 443 18 ICC 436 12 ICC 167 141 Fed 1004 28 ICC 129 13 ICC 177 141 Fed 1014 56 Fed 948 149 U S 264 13 ICC 271 150 Fed 217 57 Fed 1011 4 ICC 104 13 ICC 334 150 Fed 218 62 Fed 364 ' 159 U S 700 13 ICC 578 153 Fed 18 CITATION OF FEDERAL CASES. 162 U S 184 8 ICC 254 164 Fed 382 167 U S 479 (Cont'd.) 8 ICC 255 166 Fed 509 cc 6 ICC 195 1S3 Fed 628 8 ICC 256 188 Fed 126 7 ICC 287 153 Fed 633 8 ICC 274 189 Fed 185 7 ICC 319 157 Fed 290 8 ICC 275 190 Fed 594 7 ICC 476 157 Fed 340 8 ICC 410 190 Fed 958 7 ICC 542 157 Fed 594 8 ICC 603 195 Fed 973 7 ICC 552 157 Fed 833 9 ICC 160 197 Fed 64 7 ICC 553 158 Fed 563 9 ICC 179 204 Fed 474 7 ICC 658 158 Fed 564 10 ICC 63 166 U S 343 8 ICC 93 158 Fed 568 10 ICC 65 167 U S 493 8 ICC 107 158 Fed 569 10 ICC 110 167 U S 500 8 ICC 532 158 Fed 572 12 ICC 497 • 168 U S 165 8 ICC 558 162 Fed 247 13 ICC 87 168 US 174 9 ICC 85 162 Fed 360 13 ICC 96 175 U S 663 12 ICC 514 165 Fed 20 13 ICC 102 175 U S 675 13 ICC 368 168 Fed 166 13 ICC 277 181 US 12 18 ICC 443 168 Fed 167 14 ICC 176 181 US 28 83 Fed 267 168 Fed 549 14 ICC 430 200 U S 552 83 Fed 612 171 Fed 718 14 ICC 452 203 U S 500 85 Fed 117 176 Fed 424 15 ICC 206 206 U S 455 85 Fed 118 178 Fed 667 15 ICC 211 206 U S 456 94 Fed 273 i78 Fed 668 20 ICC 434 209 U S 78 98 Fed 344 179 Fed 620 20 ICC 444 209 U S 87 101 Fed 782 180 Fed 481 22 ICC 555 209 US 119 101 Fed 784 188 Fed 252 23 ICC 355 220 U S 253 101 Fed 786 188 Fed 255 23 ICC 469 224 U S 527 123 Fed 600 190 Fed 962 24 ICC 48 225 U S 345 123 Fed 791 192 Fed 339 25 ICC 66S 230 US 224 123 Fed 792 207 Fed 863 7Z Fed 429 123 Fed 794 209 Fed 252 74 Fed 720 152 U S 236 123 Fed 948 166 U S 343 74 Fed 787 c( : 162 U S 197 132 Fed 846 166 U S 373 74 Fed 841 162 Fed 247 167 U S 493 76 Fed 185 163 U S 346 162 Fed 360 167 U S 508 82 Fed 194 19 ICC 87 163 Fed 749 167 U S 642 83 Fed 251 165 Fed 8 168 U S 162 83 Fed 252 163 U S 537 165 Fed 20 173 US 310 83 Fed 253 12 ICC 249 168 Fed 107 175 US 662 83 Fed 254 168 Fed 724 175 U S 672 83 Fed 255 164 U S 403 170 Fed 775 186 U S 263 83 Fed 258 7 ICC 200 171 Fed 718 • 200 U S 554 83 Fed 260 172 Fed 607 204 U S 439 83 Fed 909 164 U S 578 173 Fed 974 204 U S 443 84 Fed 267 10 ICC 585 174 Fed 688 206 U S 154 86 Fed 419 21 ICC 26 176 Fed 424 206 U S 455 101 Fed 783 186 Fed 186 206 US 465 105 Fed 709 166 U S 290 186 Fed 187 224 U S 483 105 Fed 710 7 ICC 661 187 Fed 488 224 U S 527 118 Fed 626 8 ICC 469 188 Fed 245 230 U S 289 123 Fed 364- 8 ICC 474 188 Fed 252 233 U S 490 123 Fed 599 8 ICC 658 188 Fed 253 123 Fed 601 10 ICC 541 167 US 512 162 U S 197 131 Fed 454 10 ICC 580 168 U S 162 cc 3 ICC 137 137 Fed 368 15 ICC 206 194 U S 42 cc 4 ICC 447 • 141 Fed 1004111FIT' "' 204 U S 439 7 ICC 162 141 Fed 1016 166 U S 548 209 U S 120 7 ICC 438 147 Fed 63 15 ICC 624 211 US 226 7 ICC 541 153 Fed 10 211 US 291 7 ICC 613 153 Fed 13 167 U S 447 211 US 428 7 ICC 658 157 Fed 327 7 ICC 352 213 U S 194 7 ICC 660 157 Fed 329 13 ICC 578 213 US 195 8 ICC 110 157 Fed 340 15 ICC 158 224 U S 483 8 ICC 116 159 Fed 978 18 ICC 158 230 U S 288 8 ICC 119 161 Fed 611 20 ICC 541 230 U S 397 8 ICC 214 162 Fed 247 27 ICC 316 231 U S 305 29 ICC 32 232 U S 543 CITATION OF FEDERAL CASES. 167 U S 633 88 Fed 196 137 Fed 607 12 ICC 270 cc 3 ICC 613 93 Fed 87 150 Fed 687 12 ICC 274 7 ICC 592 99 Fed 61 170 U S 209 8 ICC S31 101 Fed 782 179 U S 388 8 ICC 549 101 Fed 784 170 U S 412 12 ICC 249 8 ICC 552 105 Fed 710 13 ICC 582 8 ICC 560 108 Fed 981 14 ICC 173 181 U S 1 10 ICC 205 123 Fed 601 20 ICC 569 cc 5 ICC 546 14 ICC 173 124 Fed 628 9 ICC 59 14 ICC 175 132 Fed 837 171 U S 505 9 ICC 71 15 ICC 635 ■ 137 Fed 352 8 ICC 468 9 ICC 535 21 ICC 627 141 Fed 1004 8 ICC 472 9 TCC 555 82 Fed 565 141 Fed 1014 . 8 ICC 474 10 ICC 109 141 Fed 1003 141 Fed 1016 10 ICC 541 10 ICC 134 141 Fed 1015 147 Fed 63 10 ICC 542 10 ICC 472 157 Fed 331 153 Fed 601 10 ICC 580 11 ICC 128 162 Fed 840 161 Fed 611 10 ICC 581 11 ICC 556 184 Fed 795 168 Fed 167 11 ICC 683 184 Fed 885 173 Fed 4 171 U S 578 11 ICC 685 192. US 28 174 Fed 692 11 ICC 453 12 ICC 135 176 Fed 424 13 ICC 177 168 U S 144 176 Fed 425 173 U S 684 15 ICC 179 cc 6 ICC 1 197 Fed 64 8 TCC 453 IS ICC 387 7 ICC 438 209 Fed 252 8 ICC 472 15 ICC 536 7 ICC 479 212 Fed 1000 8 ICC 478 15 ICC 575 7 ICC 542 175 U S 665 8 ICC 479 17 ICC 364 7 ICC 613 175 U S 674 17 ICC 216 18 ICC 466 7 ICC 658 181 US 12 21 ICC 436 18 ICC 507 7 ICC 660 181 US 14 28 ICC 323 21 ICC 408 7 ICC 682 181 US 15 23 ICC 56 8 ICC 45 181 US 21 175 U S 648 23 ICC ISO 8 ICC 93 181 US 32 cc 6 ICC 257 23 ICC 353 8 ICC 94 206 U S 457 8 TCC 409 108 Fed 988 8 ICC 106 209 US 119 8 ICC 425 117 Fed 743 8 ICC 107 220 U S 254 8 ICC 426 122 Fed 801 8 ICC 108 222 U S 547 9 ICC 71 123 Fed 603 8 ICC 346 224 U S 483 9 ICC 535 123 Fed 604 8 ICC 353 225 U S 342 9 TCC 555 124 Fed 628 9 ICC 68 230 U S 225 9 TCC 595 141 Fed 1004 9 ICC 71 10 TCC 109 141 Fed 1015 9 ICC 534 169 U S 173 11 ICC 128 141 Fed 1016 9 ICC 555 15 ICC 387 12 ICC 168 141 Fed 1017 11 ICC 104 15 ICC 536 12 ICC 497 142 Fed 188 11 ICC 106 15 ICC 575 13 ICC 578 176 Fed 425 11 ICC 128 15 ICC 387 188 Fed 251 11 ICC 233 169 U S 466 15 TCC 536 191 Fed 861 12 ICC 99 8 ICC 501 15 ICC 575 197 Fed 64 12 ICC 107 8 ICC 524 16 ICC 133 200 Fed 791 12 ICC 497 9 ICC 403 16 ICC 552 205 Fed 384 14 ICC 430 9 TCC 404 17 ICC 364 181 U S 32 15 ICC 387 9 ICC 436 21 TCC 409 189 U S 288 IS ICC 539 10 ICC 538 25 ICC 330 190 U S 284 15 ICC 575 •10 ICC 539 28 ICC 581 206 U S 454 16 ICC 552 10 ICC 585 208 U S 218 17 ICC 531 12 ICC 125 176 U S 498 209 US 119 18 ICC 502 12 ICC 433 13 ICC 560 234 U S 359 20 ICC 432 15 ICC. 394 21 ICC 301 17 ICC 246 177 U S 514 181 U S 29 21 ICC 406 19 TCC 471 10 ICC 225 cc 5 ICC 324 23 ICC 353 20 ICC 256 9 ICC 71 85 Fed 113 20 ICC 339 178 U S 548 10 ICC 109 85 Fed 114 23 ICC 59 10 ICC 111 85 Fed 117 169 U S 644 10 ICC 112 86 Fed 419 cc 6 ICC 257 179 U S 2R7 17 ICC 364 88 Fed 190 11 ICC 233 11 ICC 453 17 ICC 531 CITATION OF FEDERAL CASES. 181 US 29 200 Fed 791 200 U S 536 204 U S 426 (Cont'd.) 204 U S 443 cc 9 ICC 182 12 ICC 403 18 ICC 502 208 U S 218 153 Fed 18 12 ICC 423 108 Fed 988 209 US 119 153 Fed 439 13 ICC 339 142 Fed -188 159 Fed 980 13 ICC 368 191 U S 1 167 Fed 260 13 ICC 453 182 IT S 1 11 ICC 136 188 Fed 111 14 ICC 197 19 ICC 82 11 ICC 140 191 Fed 710 203 Fed 321 15 ICC 147 15 ICC 337 183 U S 263 192 U S S68 212 Fed 327 16 ICC 98 13 ICC 552 10 ICC 374 11 ICC 293 219 U S 195 17 ICC 107 17 ICC 247 183 U S 503 11 ICC 580 201 U S 321 17 ICC 367 • 21 ICC 340 17 ICC 47 17 ICC 104 12 ICC 577 17 ICC 370 18 ICC 33 184 U S 27 202 U S 242 18 ICC 433 23 ICC 62 193 U S 197 12 ICC 421 19 ICC 372 23 ICC 41 16 ICC 481 20 ICC 313 186 U S 257 18 ICC 433 11 ICC 554 194 U S 141 18 ICC 499 204 U S 449 14 ICC 339 13 ICC 375 20 ICC 168 14 ICC 82 26 ICC 28 194 U S 486 27 ICC 627 18 ICC 243 26 ICC 333 186 U S 320 19 ICC 92 202 U S 543 27 ICC 628 7 ICC 513 19 ICC 95 13 ICC 583 7 ICC 555 14 ICC 173 204 U S 986 10 ICC 83 195 U S 638 15 ICC 446 23 ICC 480 10 ICC 85 cc 8 ICC 409 20 ICC 569 10 ICC 88 cc 8 ICC 503 28 ICC 628 206 U S 1 11 ICC 238 120 Fed 934 20 ICC 315 11 ICC 277 202 U S 613 22 ICC 624 11 ICC 278 195 U S 639 cc 9 ICC 264 26 ICC 28 11 ICC 279 cc 8 ICC 409 19 ICC 36 29 ICC 428 11 ICC 296 60 CCA 540 207 U S 584 12 ICC 507 122 Fed 800 206 U S 142 12 ICC 510 203 U S 496 cc 9 ICC 440 18 ICC 319 196 U S 194 16 ICC 540 23 ICC 485 134 Fed 91 14 ICC 174 17 ICC 358 195 Fed 958 148 Fed 972 18 ICC 368 206 U S 466 164 Fed 639 197 U S 244 19 ICC 416 222 U S 546 215 U S 104 12 ICC 281 23 ICC 445 215 U S 105 206 U S 428 215 US 108 197 U S 516 204 U S 403 cc 10 ICC 548 19 ICC 87 - 12 ICC 268 14 ICC 38 186 U S 480 13 ICC 157 19 ICC 485 6 ICC 488 198 U S 483 13 ICC 585 20 ICC 342 23 ICC 419 IS ICC 168 25 ICC 59 187 U S 617 27 ICC 255 15 ICC 445 29 ICC 94 26 ICC 623 199 U S 169 12 ICC 286 15 ICC 599 29 ICC 586 190 U S 273 15 ICC 601 16 ICC 413 156 Fed 166 157 Fed 597 cc 7 ICC 431 199 U S 279 X 17 ICC 220 157 Fed 848 9 ICC 535 20 ICC 462 17 ICC 270 158 Fed 196 9 ICC 555 23 ICC 73 18 ICC 211 158 Fed 197 9 ICC 556 27 ICC 255 18 ICC 368 159 Fed 555 13 ICC 177 19 ICC 417 162 Fed 191 15 ICC 179 200 U S 361 19 ICC 490 162 Fed 192 16 ICC 546 12 ICC 91 20 ICC 526 163 Fed 737 17 ICC 531 14 ICC 322 21 ICC 208 163 Fed 742 18 ICC 502 15 ICC 19 22 ICC 561 163 Fed 749 24 ICC 237 15 ICC 128 23 ICC 446 163 Fed 750 141 Fed 1004 15 ICC 215 24 ICC 7 163 Fed 751 141 Fed 1016 16 ICC 253 27 ICC 317 163 Fed 752 141 Fed 1019 17 ICC 107 165 Fed 6 184 Fed 125 20 ICC 432 165 Fed 21 CITATION OF FEDERAL CASES. 206 U S 428 15 ICC 212 203 Fed 58 215 US 511 (Cont'd.) 18 ICC 433 211 Fed 230 216 U S 544 16S Fed 23 20 ICC 622 212 Fed 585 218 U S 103 165 Fed 24 23 ICC 470 215 US 105 218 US 110 166 Fed 217 24 ICC 74 222 U S 49 219 U S 202 166 Fed 218 28 ICC 119 -219 U S 442 166 Fed 220 215 U S 98 220 U S 517 170 Fed 233 209 U S 108 cc 10 ICC 83 222 U S 547 171 Fed 722 cc 10 ICC 428 cc 11 ICC 238 225 US 298 171 Fed 723 14 ICC 13 cc 11 ICC 277 225 U S 340 171 Fed 724 14 ICC 38 cc 11 ICC 296 227 U S 92 174 Fed ir2 14 ICC 398 cc 12 ICC 507 230 U S 268 178 Fed 262 14 ICC 408 17 ICC 412 230 U S 270 181 Fed 320 17 ICC 318 18 ICC 318 230 U S 2:^2 190 Fed 6S9 18 ICC 536 18 ICC 323 230 U S 302 194 Fed 375 19 ICC 421 23 ICC 424 230 U S 313 195 Fed 19 20 ICC 255 176 Fed 418 231 US 440 203 Fed 136 195 Fed 545 188 Fed 240 215 US 500 212 Fed 1000 188 Fed 255 215 U S 479 230 U S 258 777 U S 550 193 Fed 681 cc 13 ICC 451 230 U S 314 227 U S 99 194 Fed 457 18 ICC 33 203 Fed 58 19 ICC 358 206 U S 441 210 U S 1 222 U S 47 219 U S 202 cc 10 ICC 505 17 ICC 127 232 U S 219 13 ICC 432 234 U S 310 215 U S 481 14 ICC 38 211 U S 407 18 ICC 33 17 ICC 364 cc 12 ICC 270 215 U S 216 19 ICC 372 18 ICC 462 cc 12 ICC 277 cc 14 ICC 86 22 ICC 49 20 ICC 266 215 U S 227 22 ICC 380 21 ICC 392 211 U S 612 215 U S 595 23 ICC 281 23 ICC 355 219 U S 355 216 U S 56 25 ICC 59 23 ICC 42 29 ICC 94 211 U S 785 215 U S 452 23 ICC 60 29 ICC 586 cc 23 ICC 480 cc 13 ICC 451 158 Fed 540 18 ICC 33 216 U S 531 165 Fed 23 212 U S 19 19 ICC 358 cc 14 ICC 191 189 Fed 185 20 ICC 339 19 ICC 378 cc 16 ICC 300 194 Fed 375 19 ICC 558 20 ICC 488 195 Fed 16 212 U S 132 20 ICC 317 184 Fed 127 206 U S 436 17 ICC 104 21 ICC 412 195 Fed 964 218 US 110 20 ICC 569 22 ICC 49 222 U S 547 25 ICC 293 218 U S 88 231 U S 446 212 U S 139 176 Fed 418 cc 14 ICC 299 231 US 736 28 ICC 627 178 Fed 264 21 ICC 546 178 Fed 266 23 ICC 197 206 U S 466 212 U S 500 178 Fed 267 28 ICC 68 13 ICC 432 27 ICC 628 179 Fed 898 188 Fed 185 14 ICC 38 183 Fed 936 194 Fed 453 212 U S 563 184 Fed 124 195 Fed 974 207 U S 463 24 ICC 29 184 Fed 127 200 Fed 621 23 ICC 58 186 Fed 196 204 Fed 650 213 U S 366- • 188 Fed 158 220 U S 518 208 U S 208 17 ICC 350 188 Fed 238 231 US 736 cc 5 ICC 415 18 ICC 457 189 Fed 185 232 U S 220 cc 6 ICC 378 21 ICC 412 190 Fed 592 188 Fed 861 27 ICC 261 193 Fed 83 218 U S 113 197 Fed 60 29 ICC 690 196 Fed 698 cc 15 ICC 555 200 Fed 791 198 Fed 4 201 Fed 724 214 U S 297 200 Fed 991 218 U S 124 222 Fed 46 cc 11 ICC 90 202 Fed 606 24 ICC • 7 231 Fed 292 19 ICC 534 205 Fed 387 20 ICC 111 215 US 480 219 U S 433 209 U S 56 25 ICC It 215 U S 483 cc 14 ICC 61 13 ICC 315 188 Fed 255 215 U S 494 21 ICC 101 13 ICC 636 193 Fed 681 215 U S 498 21 ICC 389 CITATION OF FEDERAL CASES. 219 U S 433 222 U S 20 225 U S 298 226 U S 61 (Cont'd.) 23 ICC 42 227 U S 91 29 ICC 617 21 ICC 506 23 ICC 60 227 U S 92 24 ICC 659 231 U S 440 226 U S 286 25 ICC 303 222 U S 42 232 U S 221 26 ICC 496 25 ICC 313 . cc 10 ICC 309 234 U S 312 27 ICC 256 29 ICC 137 cc 12 ICC 8S 27 ICC 364 29 ICC 421 cc 14 ICC 315 223 U S 1 185 Fed 333 cc 14 ICC 317 23 ICC 43 226 U S 441 188 Fed 248 cc 14 ICC 510 27 ICC 625 190 Fed 592 cc 14 ICC 551 223 U S 573 193 Fed 681 cc IS ICC 90 26 ICC 333 226 U S 491 197 Fed 168 22 ICC 183 27 ICC 628 28 ICC 138 207 Fed 723 22 ICC 499 29 ICC 417 222 U S 547 24 ICC 30 223 U S 599 222 U S 554 24 ICC 199 26 ICC 332 227 U S 88 227 U S 92 25 ICC 327 27 ICC 628 cc 17 ICC 231 231 US 309 27 ICC 195 26 ICC 385 27 ICC 402 224 U S 194 203 Fed 57 219 U S 467 28 ICC 491 24 ICC 344 207 Fed 722 20 ICC 622 29 ICC 15 29 ICC 508 209 Fed 445 28 ICC 646 t 193 Fed 677 211 Fed 794 28 ICC 655 194 Fed 451 224 U S 383 214 Fed 468 197 Fed 64 28 ICC 542 214 Fed 469 219 U S 486 200 Fed 792 230 U S 282 cc 12 ICC 15 204 Fed '477 224 U S 474 231 US 736 187 Fed 366 209 Fed 251 19 ICC 81 233 U S 488 194 Fed 240 209" Fed 253 19 ICC 105 234 US 185 210 Fed 741 222 U S 219 231 US 293 24 ICC 136 25 ICC 136 234 U S 312 219 U S 498 227 U S 111 cc 14 ICC 250 222 U S 51 225 U S 101 27 ICC 410 22 ICC 561 cc 10 ICC 226 28 ICC 700 23 ICC 410 227 U S 657 23 ICC 440' 222 U S 215 225 U S 282 29 ICC 506 23 ICC 537 cc 10 ICC 309 cc 19 ICC 556 23 ICC 547 cc 12 ICC 85 200 Fed 654 230 U S 184 27 ICC 256 cc 14 ICC 315 205 Fed 385 28 ICC 660 28 ICC 584 cc 14 ICC 317 207 Fed 592 28 ICC 700 cc 14 ICC 510 209 Fed 248 230 U S 200 188 Fed 255 cc 15 ICC 90 214 Fed 468 29 ICC 32 192 Fed 342 22 ICC 183 225 U S 305 192 Fed 347 22 ICC 504 225 US 323 230 U S 312 198 Fed 694 24 ICC 30 225 U S 324 cc 19 ICC 356 200 Fed 510 25 ICC 327 231 U S 736 cc 19 ICC 392 206 Fed 354 28 ICC 491 234 U S 22 219 U S 452 200 Fed 792 230 U S 324 225 US 110 200 Fed 794 225 U S 302 cc 17 ICC 239 226 U S 304 227 U S 123 229 U S 341 202 Fed 849 cc 18 ICC 440 230 U S 524 222 U S 541 225 U S 306 231 U S 274 234 U S 26 cc 14 ICC 1 cc 14 ICC 619 cc 17 ICC 40 ^^«k ■W ^*t «««« tf cc 14 ICC 23 cc 17 ICC 40 cc 20 ICC 200 220 U S 235 cc 14 ICC 437 21 ICC 300 cc cc 14 ICC 24 14 ICC 51 26 ICC 20 27 ICC 29 200 Fed 779 231 US 281 29 ICC 247 231 U S 423 21 ICC 412 225 U S 326 29 ICC 508 220 U S 257 193 Fed 681 25 ICC 668 231 U S 457 23 ICC 366 195 Fed 545 28 ICC 307 28 ICC 629 27 ICC 261 195 Fed 564 28 ICC 632 29 JCC 690 195 Fed 960 226 U S 14 ^^ ^ J_ V^ ^_^ ^Jw^ \-/ 197 Fed 65 cc 20 ICC 486 232 U S 199 221 U S 229 204 Fed 474 26 ICC 230 cc 20 ICC 100 23 ICC 42 209 Fed 252 26 ICC 240 cc 23 ICC 267 23 ICC 60 214 Fed 468 227 U S 91 234 U S 312 CITATION OF FEDERAL CASES. 233 U S 479 234 U S 29 234 U S 294 234 U S 476 cc 17 ICC 225 cc 23 ICC 549 cc 18 ICC 310 cc 21 ICC 329 cc 19 ICC 18 234 U S 315 cc 21 ICC 400 234 U S 167 234 U S 1 cc 17 ICC 552 234 U S 342 234 U S 548 cc 23 ICC 277 cc 22 ICC 11 cc 23 ICC 31 . cc 23 ICC 277 cc 23 ICC 549 ' cc 24 ICC 1 234 U S 29 INDEX TO POINTS DECIDED. (The numbers refer to the Volume and Page of the I. C. C. Reports wherein is reported the case determining the point in question. For exam- Ijle, 1-15 refers to Volume 1, Page 15 of the I. C. C. Report and shown herein under that reference.) Act to Regulate Commerce. Interpretation of. 1-8; 1-28; 1-31; 1-102; 1-132; 1-144; 1-349; 3-1; 3-592;' 4-417; 4-611; S-324; 6-458; 14-86; 14-422; 16-590; 17-418; 26-380. To Whom Act Applies. 4-611; S-596; 6-378; 8-214; 8-531; 12-326; 13-329; 13-366. To Whom Act Does Not Apply. 5-596; 8-214; 11-145; 13-214. Violations of — General. 4-611; 5-13; 6-148; 7-33; 8-93; 12-15; 12-277. Allowance by Carrier to Owner of Property Transported. For Cars or Facilities Furnished by Shipper. 1-503; 2-90; 4-630; 10-1; 14-119; 17-98; 20-106; 20-200; 20-450; 21-539. For Dunnage. 14-154; 14-604; 15-192; 15-627; 18-540; 25-442; 26-681. For Leakage and Shrinkage. 4-131; 5-193; 13-620. For Lighterage and Hauling Freight. 1-107; 3-613; 4-630; 5-57; 6-295; 17-40; 23-417; 23-535. For Loading and Unloading. 1-107; 5-57; 10-173; 12-85; 14-154; 14-619; 17-40; 18-540. Illegal Allowances. 1-107; 4-630; 7-33; 7-513; 10-1; 14-619; 17-40; 17-98; 23-535. Must Be Shown in Published Tariffs. 1-S03; 9-1; 14-119. Rental Charge Paid on Shipper's Cars. 1-132; 1-503; 2-90; 4-630; 5-415; 9-1. Allowance by Carrier to Terminal Road or Boat Lines Owned or Controlled by Shipper. General. 10-1; 10-148; 10-193; 10-385; 10-505; 14-237; 14-246; 15-248; 17-338; 17-514; 21-304; 29-212. Legality of. 10-385; 17-514; 21-304; 23-277; 23-358; 27-353; 29-212. Preference and Discrimination in. 10-193; 20-200. Tap Lines. 14-364; 16-323; 17-338; 18-517; 20-450; 23-277; 23-5.49; 24-89; 24-161; 24-634; 24-639; 27-302. Bills of Lading. 1-236; 2-553; 8-121; 13-258; 13-550; 14-346; 15-577; 18-430; 19-79; 21-8; 21-60; 23-417; 25-216; 26-561. Classification of Freight and Freight Classifications. Carload and Less-than-carload Ratings. 3-473; 4-212; 5-638; 9-78; 14-272; 21-289; 23-151; 25-442; 28-205. Carload Ratings — Mixed. 2-1; 5-122; 5-478; 9-38; 9-440; 22-93; 25-442. INDEX TO POINTS DECIDED. Construction of. 2-1; 2-122; 3-19; 9-264; 9-646; 12-438; 20-546; 25-442. Description of Commodity. 4-41; 20-546. Discrimination in. 1-393; 2-122; 4-447; 9-440; 25-442. General Principles Governing. 2-1; 3-473; 4-417; 6-148; 13-283; 16-405; 20-546; 21-103; 21-289; 22-93; 23-504; 25-185; 25-442. Elements of — General. 1-465; 3-473; 4-32; 4-87; 4-212; 6-548; 7-43; 9-78; 9-264; 9-440; 9-646; 12-215; 13-295; 13-651; 15-27; 17-197; 17-430; 18-205; 20-498; 20-546; 22-261; 22-291; 23-180; 24-299; 25-442. Elements of — Comparison of Analogous Articles. 1-393; 2-573; 4-87; 5-638; 7-43; 12-438; 23-180; 23-395; 23-504; 24-606; 25-442; 27-298. Elements of — Value of Commodity. 4-733; 4-87; 6-85; 11-581; 14-272; 15-27; 17-197; 21-8; 22-261; 25-442. Elements of — Volume of Business. 4-32; 4-212; 25-442. Influences Determining. 3-435; 9-264; 9-646; 25-442. Jurisdiction of Commission. 6-148; 9-78; 25-442. Reasonableness of. 3-435; 23-395; 25-442. Common Carriers — General. Defined. 2-162; 3-577; 10-148; 15-248; 17-338; 17-514; 18-517; 20-450; 21-304; 23-17; 23-277; 23-358; 24-89; 24-161; 24-179; 24-634; 24-639; 27-353; 29-212. Duty to Interpret Act. 1-8; 5-324. Effect of Receivership. 5-529; 6-1; 6-378; 6-520. Express Companies. 12-196; 13-475; 13-516; 14-422; 15-15; 16-182; 16-436; 17-115; 18-415; 24-380. Fast Freight Lines. 1-158. General. 1-86; 3-592; 6-36; 15-15; 16-323; 16-410; 17-98. In re Internal Affairs. 1-86; 7-612; 10-173; 11-129; 12-144; 13-451; 17-98; 17-375; 20-243; 20-307; 20-458. Public Necessity as Measure of Carrier's Duty. 2-162; 24-55; 25-216. Private Car Companies. 1-132; 3-577; 5-415; 6-295; 11-129. Contracts Between Carriers, Shippers and the Public in General. 4-296; 6-85; 11-145; 13-633; 14-119; 15-109; 17-15; 18-212; 22-149. General. 1-594; 5-415; 13-451; 17-40. Jurisdiction of Commission. 7-385; 11-145; 14-237; 17-15; 17-98. INDEX TO POINTS DECIDED. Contracts, Agreements and Arrangements Between Common Carriers. Common Control, Management or Arrangement. 4-664; S-324; 6-1; 8-S31; 15-595; 17-225; 24-179. In re Rates and Routes. 6-1; 6-19S; 7-386; 14-619; 23-256; 23-549; 24-55; 28-502. In re Tickets. 1-86. Transportation of Company Material. 6-131; 7-33; 8-630; 16-512; 20-426; 21-129; 21-270; 22-439. Discrimination, Preference and Advantage. Based on Ownership of Shipment. 9-620; 14-422; 14-437; 15-73. Based on Volume of Tonnage. 7-218; 10-226; 14-437; -17-324; 19-592; 23-239; 24-46; 27-152. Between Carload Ratings. 4-212. Between Cities on Opposite Banks of River. 5-57; 14-563; 17-239; 20-33; 20-181; 22-239; 24-220; 24-331; 25-27; 25-93 27-54. Between Competitive Articles. 5-514; 9-1. Between Competitive and Non-Competitive Points. 5-546; 22-39; 23-17; 23-140; 23-256; 23-438; 28-154. Betvi'een Connecting Lines. 4-702; 9-17; 12-23. Between Diflferent Kinds of Traffic. 4-611; 8-S31; 8-630; 14-121; 26-575. Between Different Parts of System. 2-604; 5-44. Between Localities. 1-24; 1-215; 1-230; 1-401; 1-436; 2-147; 2-155; 2-324; 4-79; 4-686; 5-57 S-156; 5-160; 6-§4; 7-224; 7-481; 7-612; 8-93; 8-142; 8-290'; 8-503; 8-608 9-42; 9-160; 10-29; 10-289; 12-111; 12-229; 12-254; 12-312; 12-507 14-178; 16-219; 17-57; 19-303; 22-160; 24-213; 24-290; 25-216; 26-53 27-125; 27-168; 27-173; 27-282; 28-280; 28-511; 28-677. Between Station in Same City. 1-107; 19-323. By Express Companies. 13-475; 15-15; 18-415; 24-380. Carrier Discriminating in Favor of Itself and Other Carriers. 4-296; 7-33; 8-630; 16-512; 20-426; 21-129; 21-270; 22-439. Carrier's Joint and Several Liability for Discrimination. 1-158; 1-199; 1-401; 2-131; 5-264; 6-378; 10-83; 12-229; 12-250; 14-199 14-250; 15-586; 16-155; 17-15; 17-304; 17-379; 17-418; 17-588; 18-485 20-606; 21-14; 21-20; 22-84; 22-604; 23-140; 23-345; 24-96; 27-24; 27-125 27-238; 27-661; 28-154; 28-173; 28-178; 28-280. Construction of Act in Reference to. 2-231; 2-324; 4-447; 22-394. Damage Necessary to Constitute Undue Prejudice. 2-618; 5-264; 10-173; 11-588; 13-56; 18-154; 20-539; 21-41; 21-605; 24-623; 25-141;. 27-165; 28-511. Defined. 1-401; 2-272; 2-618; 4-447; 5-193; 5-234; 6-458; 7-386; 8-531; 8-630; 9-1; 11-104; 15-586; 17-596; 22-115; 22-366; 23-345; 26-53; 27-125. Differences as Constituting Unjust Discrimination. 1-594; 4-447; 5-234; 6-1; 8-304; 12-438; 19-323; 22-115; 26-575. Differences in Character of the Service Recognized. 6-85; 6-488; 8-304; 10-173; 23-17. INDEX TO POINTS DECIDED. Difference in Mode of Shipment. 1-503; 2-90; 4-131; 4-158; 4-611; 5-415; 7-92; 10-226; 11-382; 14-437; 22-565; 28-38. In Construction of Rates. 2-S40; 6-195; 7-92; 12-229; 13-633; 14-294; 16-155; 18-391; 18-502; 19-303; 22-141; 22-446; 23-121; 23-226; 26-140; 26-528; 27-122; 27-230; 27-661; 28-511; 29-565. Participation by Carrier in Traffic Necessary to. 5-264; 7-481; 12-254; 15-586; 16-155; 17-418; 18-271; 18-593; 19-424; 19-535; 21-215; 21-248; 21-637; 22-84; 22-407; 23-345; 25-379; 26-85; 27-125. Preference as to Character of Traffic. 12-418; 15-370; 20-426. Preference as to Trade Centers. 3-19; 5-466; 6-343; 8-377; 9-118; 13-638; 15-109; 19-323; 21-186; 27-673. Rates Adopted to Foster Interest of Carrier. 3-19; 6-343; 13-243; 13-460; 14-364; 15-73; 15-109; 15-460; 15-620; 17-479; 24-609; 26-85; 26-140; 26-215. Rates Creating Market. 3-19; 8-377; 14-41; 15-109; 21-186; 27-673. Rates Creating Monopoly. 8-377; 15-620; 24-96; 26-179; 29-609. Rates for Certain Class of Shippers. 1-107; 1-401; 1-594; 2-25; 2-90; 2-324; 4-131; 5-466; 6-1; 7-218; 9-1; 12-438; 13-460; 14-250; 15-620; 18-212; 20-426; 22-439. Rates Restricting Movement of Traffic. 1-393; 8-377; 11-558; 12-196; 12-351; 13-460; 14-1; 14-127; 14-364; 15-460; 15-491; 15-620; 16-219; 17-479; 19-162; 21-81; 21-230; 22-39; 22-178; 23-438; 24-55; 25-379; 26-53; 26-85; 26-215; 28-471; 29-609. Similar Circumstances and Conditions. 1-31; 1-208; 1-401; 4-79; 6-85; 8-93; 8-333; 9-17; 11-104; 11-145; 12-95; 13-87; 18-427; 22-115; 23-31; 25-403; 28-47. What Constitutes Undue. 1-208; 1-230; 2-90; 2-324; 5-264; 7-194; 7-556; 8-409; 9-118; 11-558; 14-250; 19-119; 22-115; 22-366; 22-394; 24-629; 25-112; 27-125. When Lawful. 1-152; 1-401; 1-629; 5-546; 8-93; 11-627; 13-87; 15-567; 16-482; 17-60; 20-575; 22-387; 22-391; 26t341. When Unlawful. 1-230; 1-393; 1-503; 2-85; 2-90; 2-324; 6-36; 6-85; 6-195; 6-295; 7-194; 7-218; 8-608; 9-620; 11-104; 12-308; 13-87; 13-460; 14-250; 15-73; 17-479; 18-212; 18-545; 22-62; 22-439; 23-345; 23-417; 24-55; 24-290; 26-575; 26-675; 27-168. Equipment, Car Supply and Distribution. Carriers Must Provide Adequate Equipment. 4-158; 5-415; 10-360; 12-561; 13-378; 20-52. Carrier's Duty to Furnish Cars. 1-102; 1-374; 1-503; 1-594; 2-90; 2-389; 4-131; 5-415; 9-182; 10-226; 12-32; 13-1; 15-160; 19-356; 20-72; 21-539; 22-39; 25-442; 28-502. Carrier's Duty to Furnish Cars of Size Ordered. 2-389; 12-549; 14-561; 14-577; 15-349; 16-56; 16-285; 16-289; 17-297; 17-322; 17-533; 20-72; 21-181; 22-432. Carrier's Duty to Furnish Cars in Suitable Condition. 5-57; 21-539; 25-442. Carrier's Duty to Furnish Special Equipment. 10-360; 11-129; 25-159; 26-681. Equitable Distribution of Empty Cars. 1-374; 1-594; 9-207; 10-47; 10-226; 10-422; 11-619; 12-398; 12-553; 13-69; . 13-451; 14-86; 18-25; 19-356; 19-392; 20-52; 22-39; 22-432; 23-186; 23-458; 24-213; 28-502. INDEX TO POINTS DECIDED. Interchange of Cars Between Carriers. 1-374; 12-32; 12-561; 28-502. Jurisdiction of Commission. 1-102; 2-90; 2-338; 3-534; 5-193; 10-360; 12-398; 14-86; 14-561; 19-56; 19-356. Manner of Acquiring. 3-577; 5-41S; 6-295; 9-182; 10-360; 11-129. Private Cars. 1-132; 1-503; 2-90; 3-577; 4-131; 4-630; 5-415; 6-295; 9-1; 12-398; 13-378; 13-451; 19-56; 19-356; 19-392; 19-551. Elevation Service, Charges and Allowances. Allowance for. 12-85; 12-254; 14-315; 14-317; 14-551; 15-90; 22-496; 25-326. As Transportation Service, 10-309; 12-85; 14-315; 14-317; 15-90; 15-147; 16-590; 18-364. Defined. 12-85; 22-496. Discrimination in. 12-111; 14-317; 22-496. Legality of. 12-85; 14-315; 15-147. Jurisdiction of Commission. 14-317. Reasonableness of. 10-309; 18-364. Interchange of Traffic Between Carriers. Bridge Companies. 2-162. Discrimination in. r-401; 4-265; 4-702; 6-195; 7-194; 9-17; 9-311; 10-47; 10-173; 12-308; 13-460; 19-356; 29-114. Embargo. 10-47; 12-308; 18-25; 22-39. Equal Facilities for Interchange of Traffic. 1-401; 2-162; 12-270; 26-226; 26-240; 29-114. General. 1-104; 3-592; 4-535. Jurisdiction of Commission. 10-173; 12-270; 12-308; 26-240. Rail and Water Lines. 13-266. Terminal Facilities. 12-479; 12-507; 13-460; 14-191; 23-474; 26-240; 28-621; 29-114. Interstate Commerce. Distinction Between Interstate and Intrastate. 2-142; 2-375; 4-744; 7-33; 11-438; 13-329; 13-573; 15-595; 18-175; 20-486. State Common Carrier as Facility of. 1-495; 3-592; 4-744; 8-531; 13-329; 13-573. What Constitutes. 1-30; 1-495; 2-142; 7-513; 8-531; 13-573; 17-15; 17-225; 18-175; 23-115; 24-1; 24-340; 25-78. Interstate Commerce Commission. Powers and Duty of — General. 1-8; 1-17; 1-28; 1-102; 1-152; 1-158; 1-208; 1-339; 1-349; 1-428; 4-116; 4-535; S-166; 12-398; 12-483; 14-154; 15-90; 15-147; 20-307. INDEX TO POINTS DECIDED. Interstate Commerce Commission — Jurisdiction of. Anti-Trust Laws. 8-443; 10-548; 21-81. Electric Railways. 13-20; 17-239; 20-232; 20-406; 20-486; 24-255. Express Companies. 1-349; 13-475; 14-422. Fast Freight Lines. 1-158. Foreign Commerce. 4-447; 8-110; 8-214; 10-55; 13-87; 13-266; 19-81; 19-105; 25-136. General. 5-234; 5-478; 5-596; 7-83; 7-286; 7-612; 8-93; 9-382; 10-173; 12-144; 13-214; 15-37; 17-40; 17-90; 19-81; 19-105; 20-307; 25-411. Interstate Transportation. 1-495; 7-83; 7-286; 20-307. Intrastate Transportation. 1-495; 7-92; 7-513; 10-173; 13-48; 13-214; 13-329; 13-542; 13-573; 22-558; 23-31; 23-404; 24-244; 26-272. Pipe Lines. 24-1. Rail-and-Water Lines. 2-645; 13-542; 25-388; 26-380; 29-609. Sleeping Car Companies. 16-410; 18-135. Special Privileges. 1-17; 1-20. Tort Actions. 1-428; 15-33; 15-53; 17-361; 18-212; 19-356; 19-513. Transportation by Team or Wagon. 7-286; 11-145; 12-39; 23-72; 25-411. Water Carriers. 3-534; 4-265; 5-13; 10-148; 12-326; 13-266; 15-205; 20-3; 24-179; 24-570. Wharfage Companies. 14-250; 25-136; 25-388. Long and Short Haul Clause (4th Section). Application of — General. 5-596; 8-214; 8-531; 21-329; 22-366; 22-407; 24-192;24-372; 24-593; 25-50; 28-589. Application to Intermediate Points. 1-230; 2-1; 2-604; 4-1; 4-744; 5-478; 6-488; 7-431; 8-214: 8-290; 9-42; 9-250; 11-640; 13-620; 14-41; 14-228; 17-149; 18-562; 19-162; 19-238; 20-530; 22-366; 22-519; 26-53. Dissimilarity of Conditions. 3-225; 5-234; 6-257; 6-588; 7-61; 7-458; 7-593; 8-290; 8-346; 8-409; 9-68; 9-581; 13-56; 14-75; 14-98; 15-567; 20-89; 23-115; 23-140; 23-684; 28-589. Dissimilarity of Conditions — Competition. 1-31; 1-158; 3-225; 5-324; 5-596; 6-257; 6-361; 6-588; 6-632; 7-224; 7-431; 7-458; 7-593; 8-93; 8-346; 9-68; 10-289; 11-640; 11-683; 12-58; 13-56; 13-173; 13-388; 13-601; 15-567; 16-550; 20-89; 23-140; 24-192; 24-228; 25-50; 25-93; 25-277; 29-583. Dissimilarity of Conditions — Water Competition. 1-31; 1-236; 2-52; 3-225; 4-104; 4-744; 5-97; ';-234; 5-478; 6-488; 7-224; 8-33; 8-346; 8-481; 9-42; 9-250; 9-318; 13-225; 14-75; 15-376; 15-534; 20-530; 22-366; 24-81; 24-125; 25-50. Greater Charge for Shorter Distance. , 4-744; 5-478; 6-361; 9-581. INDEX TO POINTS DECIDED. Interpretation of Fourth Section. 1-158; 3-19; 4-744; 5-234; 7-61; 21-329. Jurisdiction of Commission. 1-31; 5-478; 21-400. Similarity of Circumstances and Conditions. 1-31; 1-158; 2-52; 3-225; 6-257; 7-61; 7-92; 8-93; 8-346; 21-400. Violations of — In General. 1-199; 1-626; 2-1; 3-225; 4-104; 4-744; 5-97; 6-344; 6-588; 7-92; 7-431; 8-93; 13-620; 23-115; 23-672; 24-50. Passenger Fares and Tickets. Baggage. 23-72; 25-411. Character of Equipment as Factor In. 2-338; 19-56. Construction of Act in Reference To. 1-147; 17-239; 25-650; 26-359. Discrimination in. 1-147; 1-156; 1-208; 2-338; 3-1; 9-642; 10-221. Discrimination in re White and Colored Passengers. 1-339; 1-428; 12-247; 16-471. Jurisdiction of Commission. 13-298; 18-60; 20-232; 21-428; 24-255. Method of Construction. 1-86; 2-648; 16-410; 20-181; 20-232; 23-95. Mileage, Excursion and Commutation. 1-147; 1-156; 1-208; 2-648; 6-113; 8-443; 16-410; 18-60; 20-557; 21-428; 23-95; 24-255. Publication of Rates. 1-147; 2-649; 3-465; 23-95. Payment of Commission for Sale of Tickets. 1-86. Reasonableness of. 1-86; 6-113; 10-221; 11-458; 12-95; 19-218; 20-181; 20-232; 20-406. Reduced or Special Fares. 1-147; 1-156; 1-208; 2-338; 2-649; 3-465; 7-83; 12-95; 13-298; 18-60. Through — ^General. 1-86; 7-601; 11-458. Practice and Procedure Before the Commission. Abstract Questions. 1-8; 1-17; 1-20; 1-28; 1-58; 1-401; 3-128; 3-221; 3-223; 3-266; 6-647. Application Under Fourth Section. 1-31; 6-488; 8-290. Attorney's Fees. 1-339; 15-147. Cause of Action. 1-8; 1-17; 1-28; 1-102; 1-144; 1-152; 1-158; 1-339; 1-428; 1-495; 1-629; 4-265; 8-214; 10-83; 14-109; 15-201; 15-235; 17-139. Complaint — General. 1-17; 1-24; 1-28; 1-158; 1-393; 1-629; 4-104; 4-251; 5-571; 7-556; 10-83; 12-223; 13-411; 14-109; 14-272; 17-359; 17-430; 17-552; 18-67; 19-162; 19-354; 21-45; 21-323; 25-112; 26-380; 27-370. Complaint — Amendment To. 1-372; 1-393; 14-558. Complaint — Capacity of Parties. 1-144; 1-158; 1-629; 2-359; 4-664; 5-13; 5-612; 6-1; 6-378; 7-92; 7-513; 10-193; 10-428; 10-548; 13.411; 21-171; 27-32; 27-302. Complaint — liegality of Purpose. 7-556; 17-359. INDEX TO POINTS DECIDED. Complaint — Satisfaction of. 1-104; 1-227; 3-221; 3-223; 3-224; 3-266; 4-694; 12-23; 13-513. Construction of Act by Commission. 1-8; 1-28; 1-144; 1-156; 1-158; 1-490; 5-13; 17-361. Decision and Orders — Force and Effect. 1-8; 1-17; 1-227; 1-490; 2-365; 5-193; 5-324; 6-45S; 7-513; 8-304; 8-409 10-83; 10-289; 12-507; 14-210; 14-510; 14-597; 15-90; 16-95; 16-100 16-323; 17-251; 17-288; 18-364; 18-440; 19-356; 21-513; 22-387; 23-483 24-96. Evidence — Burden of Proof. 1-31; 1-104; 1-158; 2-304; 2-604; 3-252; 4-104; 4-131; 4-228; 5-13; 5-97 5-156; 5-324; 5-612; S-638; 6-1; 6-257; 7-180; 8-93; 8-158; 8-261; 8-277 8-290; 9-118; 12-427; 14-272; 14-398; 15-165; 16-550; 17-313; 17-324: 20-43; 20-243; 20-307; 21-323; 21-329; 21-400; 22-261; 22-366; 25-50 26-669; 27-24; 28-471. Evidence — Rules of. 5-166; 5-324; 12-61; 13-418; 14-199. Evidence — Subpoena Duces Tecum. 3-186; 4-296; 12-61; 15-15. Evidence — Insufficiency Of. 1-102; 1-230; 1-503; 4-228; 4-296; 8-277; 17-115; 17-139; 18-144; 21-513. Evidence — Sufficiency Of. 1-236; 1-401; 2-304; 4-228; 10-83; 13-266; 13-411; 13-501; 14-272; 15-147; 18-352; 19-592; 20-606; 26-380; 27-302; 28-471. General Investigation. 5-13; 9-382; 14-619. Hearings. 4-116; 13-542; 17-361. Intervenors. 15-301; 18-113. Necessary Parties Defendant. 1-199; 1-490; 2-122; 2-375; 4-195; 6-378; 6-458; 6-548; 8-598; 9-534; 10-83; 12-51; 13-225; 13-288; 13-513; 14-588; 21-45. Pleadings. 1-156; 5-234; 14-272; 21-490. Proceedings. 1-17; 1-156; 1-208; 1-490; 2-73; 4-116; 5-13; 5-69; 5-324; 5-612; 6-520; 8-333; 11-180; 12-186; 12-375; 13-225; 13-418; 15-165; 17-139; 25-303: 26-272. Procedure — General. 5-166; 6-520; 6-548; 8-409; 8-503; 10-83; 12-144; 12-242; 12-427; 12-483: 13-225; 13-266; 13-366; 14-398; 14-597; 15-165; 15-170; 15-301; 16-195: 17-361; 17-375; 18-67; 18-165; 23-239; 23-483. Rehearings. 1-490; 3-87; 3-130; 4-281; 4-443; 5-1; 6-52; 6-455; 7-555-A; 10-35; 12-254; 14-510; 19-128; 19-419; 25-14; 26-272; 27-238. Rates and Charges — Freight. Application of. 7-240; 11-104; 12-163; 13-342; 14-563; 15-228; 17-113; 17-220; 21-14: 22-277; 22-565; 28-38. Basis of Rates — Basing-Point System. 1-236; 4-686; 6-343; 6-361; 8-142; 8-409; 12-229; 12-242; 14-294; 15-555; 16-20; 16-56; 16-134; 16-182; 18-502; 28-154; 28-173; 28-178; 28-280; 28-511. Basis of Rates — Blanket or Group. 1-629; 2-272; 2-540; 2-618; 4-228; 4-447; 5-478; 6-131; 7-43; 7-92- 7-386 12-220; 12-324; 13-633; 15-286; 15-534; 16-155; 16-164; 16-195- 16-323 16-387; 16-482; 17-128; 17-149; 18-391; 18-396; 19-218; 19-303; 19-535 22-141; 22-149; 22-387; 22-422; 22-446; 22-578; 23-121; 23-151 24-220 25-342; 26-140; 26-528; 27-122; 27-230; 27-661; 28-511. INDEX TO POINTS DECIDED. Basis of Rates — Mileage. 2-604; 5-612; 12-351; 22-11; 22-160; 23-652; 23-656; 28-428. Basis of Rates — Policy of Commssion. 12-351; 15-504; 15-376; 15-351; 21-591; 22-578; 23-684. Basis of Rates — General. 1-236; 3-19; 3-137; 4-447; 4-686; 5-324; 6-488; 11-495; 12-242; 12-324 12-351; 12-427; 14-178; 14-299; 16-56; 16-323; 17-128; 17-521; 18-259 19-238; 20-243; 21-329; 22-303; 22-446; 22-565; 23-345; 23-684; 24-140 24-244; 25-337; 27-165; 27-173; 27-223; 27-673; 28-38; 28-47; 28-64 28-76; 28-82; 28-193. Carload and Less-than-carload Ratings. 3-473; 9-318; 9-620; 11-382; 11-495; 14-272; 14-631; 16-49; 16-590; 17-15; 17-56; 18-1; 21-124; 21-289; 22-303; 25-442; 28-205. Carrier Cannot Be Required to Meet Competition. 1-158; 2-389; 12-73; 13-342; 14-1; 14-575; 15-11; 15-70; 15-567; 15-586; 16-6; 19-323; 24-312; 28-467. Carrier's Duty As to Charges — General. 1-31; 1-436; 2-324; 4-1; 5-299; 6-36; 9-264; 15-286; 17-60; 17-596; 18-234; 18-271; 22-178; 22-439; 23-31; 24-1; 24-179; 25-442. Carrier's Right and Duty in Establishing Rates. 3-450; 5-299; 7-612; 8-377; 11-558; 17-15. Change in Rate — Affecting Commercial Interests. 5-514; 13-31; 14-1; 14-23; 14-61; 14-299; 14-398; 15-59; 15-79; 15-109; 15-286; 15-305; 15-555; 16-20; 16-195; 16-232; 16-323; 16-534; 19-162; 19-303; 21-186; 21-389; 22-11; 22-303. Change in Rate — Disturbance of Existing Rate Conditions. 2-315; 2-389; 2-540; 6-1; 7-180; 9-250; 10-111; 12-457; 12-530; 14-210 14-299; 15-79; 15-376; 15-504; 15-555; 16-56; 16-572; 17-115; 17-128 17-149; 18-73; 18-502; 18-532; 20-243; 21-171; 21-546; 22-93; 23-98 23-195; 23-345; 24-570; 28-76; 28-205. Combination of Locals as Through Rate. 8-277; 12-163; 13-48; 18-144. Commodity Rates. 5-299; 15-326; 17-273; 17-430; 19-238; 19-561; 20-141. Competitive Rates Must Be Reasonable. 2-231; 4-1; 4-131; 5-193; 5-596. Conditions Affecting. 1-132; 8-561; 9-78; 11-13; 14-1; 19-148. Differentials. 1-24; 1-436; 14-127; 16-56; 17-115; 19-218; 19-348; 21-546; 28-82. Distribution of Burdens of Transportation. 1-31; 9-264; 21-323; 22-604; 29-565.' Divisions Of. 1-436; 3-649; 6-1; 8-277; 8-598; 10-29; 11-108; 14-364; 16-300; 17-22; 21-14; 22-93; 22-578; 24-179; 24-290; 24-634; 25-241; 26-675; 27-6; 27-71; 27-223. Duty of Carrier and Shipper in re Legal Rates. 7-255; 12-418; 12-469; 12-535; 13-56; 13-192; 14-195; 18-280; 18-299; 22-277; 23-438. Equalization of, Between Localities. 1-24; 1-401; 1-436; 2-25; 14^121; 14-272; 24-552. Equalization of Commercial and Natural Disadvantages. 2-375; 5-264; 5-299; 5-514; 5-571; 5-612; 6-195; 6-458; 6-647; 10-35 10-148; 11-212; 12-254; 13-11; 13-31; 14-356; 14-476; 15-504; 16-49; 16-323 17-149; 20-37; 21-113; 21-186; 21-490; 22-84; 22-160; 22-488; 22-596 22-640; 23-31; 23-86; 23-98; 23-385; 23-438; 24-552; 24-594; 25-241 21-119; 26-181; 26-265; 27-238; 27-388; 27-530; 28-47L Equalization of Inequalities. 1-24; 1-401; 1-436; 11-13; 12-495; 14-121; 14-476; 18-572; 22-604; 23-656; 27-173; 28-82. INDEX TO POINTS DECIDED. Equalizing Jobber's Rates. 1-401; 2-25; 6-343; 8-503; 23-195; 28-82. Export and Import Rates. 1-24; 3-137; 4-447; 8-110; 8-185; 8-214; 8-304; 9-534; 10-55; 11-13 12-236; 12-351; 12-367; 13-87; 13-266; 14-340; 15-185; 17-496; 22-558 23-404; 23-465; 24-55; 24-78; 24-134; 24-674; 24-678; 25-78; 27-238 27-388. Factors and Elements of. 1-31; 1-152; 1-215; 1-325; 1-436; 1-480; 1-503; 1-629; 2-73; 2-155; 3-534 5-193; 5-638; 7-69; 8-121; 8-158- 9-250; 10-226; 10-428; 10-505; 10-548 11-238; 12-178; 12-381; 12-471;' 13-258; 14-476; 14-597; 15-286; 15-351 15-376; 15-577; 16-49; 16-323; 16-452; 17-72; 18-113; 19-148; 19-162 19-218; 19-238; 19-265; 19-409; 19-551; 21-389; 22-149; 22-303; 22-407 22-604; 22-640; 23-151; 23-432; 26-159; 29-609. Factors and Elements of — Bridge Tolls. 14-563; 17-239; 20-33; 20-181; 22-239; 24-331; 25-27; 29-565; 29-583. Factors and Elements of — Carrier's Earnings. 1-480; 6-131; 7-224; 7-286; 10-505; 10-548; 11-238; 13-418; 13-460; 14-23; 14-61; 15-286; 15-376; 15-453; 17-552; 18-440; 19-162; 19-265; 19-460; 20-181; 20-243; 20-463; 22-252; 22-640; 25-669. Factors and Elements of — Commercial or Natural Advantage of Location. 7-180; 7-386; 8-409; 9-S58; 12-130; 12-451; 13-56; 14-127; 14-294; 14-299 15-286; 15-376; 15-491; 16-12; 16-323; 17-128; 17-552; 18-502; 18-572 19-238; 19-257; 19-303; 19-323; 20-190; 21-113; 21-186; 21-490; 22-239 22-407; 24-55; 24-96; 24-192; 24-312; 25-303; 27-83. Factors and Elements of — Competition. 1-158; 2-73; 2-147; 2-231; 4-1; 4-228; 5-166; 5-324; 5-546; 6-588; 6r632 8-93; 8-142; 8-158; 8-185; 8-214; 9-17; 9-118; 9-558; 10-289; 11-495 12-351; 12-525; 13-48; 13-87; 13-342; 13-460; 13-620; 13-633; 13-638 13-668; 14-51; 14-317; 14-594; 16-232; 16-512; 17-197; 17-302; 17-418 17-521; 17-552; 17-594; 18-38; 18-73; 18-88; 18-271; 18-522; 18-532 18-593; 19-424; 19-460; 19-598; 20-148; 20-243; 21-222; 25-342; 26-53 28-178. Factors and- Elements of — Competition Between Cities. 1-436; 5-166; 6-458; 6-647; 7-180; 7-386; 7-612; 8-93; 8-409; 8-503; 9-118 12-47; 12-485; 13-87; 13-319; 13-349; 13-357; 13-363; 13-388; 13-638 14-61; 14-127; 14-476; 15-109; 15-460; 16-73; 16-155; 16-195; 16-572 17-128; 17-313; 18-205; 18-405; 18-572; 18-601; 20-190; 21-329; 21-400 21-591; 22-178; 22-283; 22-477; 22-519; 22-548; 24-46; 24-55; 24-81 24-312; 25-303; 26-181; 26-265; 27-125; 28-47; 28-280; 29-583. Factors and Elements of — Carrier Competition. 1-230; 2-1S5; 2-375; 3-534; 4-131; 5-193; 5-324; 5-546; S-596; 6-361; 6-568 6-632; 7-431; 7-458; 7-481; 7-612; 8-346; 9-160; 9-534; 10-29; 11-238 12-451; 13-87; 14-215; 14-299; 16-323; 16-550; 17-430; 18-405; 18-502 19-303; 19-522; 22-519; 23-98; 23-140; 23-345; 24-50; 24-228; 29-583. Factors and Elements of — Cost of Production of Commodity 4-48; 4-195; 16-164; 17-149; 18-405; 19-119; 19-162; 19-265; 22-160. Factors and Elements of — Cost of Service. 2-90; 2-272; 2-375; 3-577; 4-48; 4-131; 4-158; 4-281; 4-664; 5-529; 9-1 9-382; 10-428; 10-505; 10-548; 11-13; 11-238; 11-495; 12-233; 12-351 12-388; 12-411; 13-388; 13-418; 14-1; 14-178; 14-299; 14-376- 15-185 15-305; 15-376; 15-546; 15-555; 16-12; 16-45; 16-106; 16-387 16-452 16-590; 17-423; 18-113; 18-440; 19-162; 19-218; 19-259; 20-243; 20-307 20-498; 21-22; 21-81; 21-129; 22-149; 22-303; 22-488; 22-558; 22-604 22-640; 23-31; 23-121; 24-96; 24-280; 25-71; 26-402; 27-125. Factors and Elements of — Distance. 1-480; 1-629; 2-52; 2-315; 2-604; 3-225; 4-1; 5-264; 6-343; 6-458- 7-180 7-458; 7-612; 8-304; 9-17; 11-13; 12-138; 13-349; 13-633; 14-51- 'l4-376 15-42; 15-109; 15-286; 16-134; 16-179; 16-195; 16-482; 16-512- 16-572 17-197; 17-313; 18-73; 18-405; 18-440; 19-119; 19-156 19-218- 19-303' 19-424; 20-100; 22-84; 22-239; 22-429; 22-195; 23-652; 23-679-24-96 25-112; 25-277; 25-342; 25-379; 26-159; 26-520; 26-539 27-83 27-125 27-173; 27-210; 27-223; 27-661; 28-76; 29-565 . ' o-'. ^i i^a INDEX TO POINTS DECIDED. Factors and Elements of — Public Policy and Public Welfare. 7-386; 8-214; 9-581; 12-32; 14-51; 14-398; 15-109; 18-405; 20-100; 21-389; 22-178; 22-303; 22-640; 24-46; 24-55; 24-280; 26-638. Factors and Elements of — Prosperity of Shipper. 10-505; 11-238; 13-418; 14-1; 14-98; 16-182; 16-512; 17-552; 21-389; 22-640; 24-140; 27-173. Factors and Elements of — Private or Special Equipment. 1-132; 17-447; 18-185; 18-208; 23-395; 26-265. Factors and Elements of — Risk of Transportation. 2-131; 2-365; 13-405; 13-550. Factors and Elements of — Special Service. 10-255; 12-411; 14-376; 15-370; 16-106; 19-148; 27-173. Factors and Elements of — State-made Rates. 8-185; 13-48; 14-476; 15-453; 18-405; 18-532; 22-160; 22-519; 23-31; 23-656; 24-315. Factor and Elements of — Value of Commodity. 6-131; 8-158; 10-428; 12-388; 13-388; 13-418; 13-550; 14-340; 15-9; 15-79 15-274; 15-305; 15-326; 16-369; 16-405; 17-197; 17-273; 17-430; 17-475 18-562; 19-409; 19-513; 20-307; 20-419; 21-22; 21-289; 21-389; 23-151 23-432; 25-337; 26-159; 26-373. Factors and Elements of — Value of Service. 4-48; 4-588; 5-529; 9-1; 10-337; 14-170; 17-313; 20-181; 20-307; 21-124; 22-604; 22-640; 23-385; 25-71; 27-125. Factors and Elements of — Volume of Traffic. 2-142; 9-42; 10-226; 11-627; 12-339; 13-668; 14-1; 15-555r 16-134; 16-195; 16-323; 16-550; 17-128; 17-430; 18-205; 19-218; 19-238; 19-530; 20-243; 23-151; 24-228; 25-337; 26-472; 27-152. Factors and Elements of — Water Competition. 1-31; 1-236; 2-52; 2-147; 3-225; 3-435; 3-534; 4-1; 4-104; 4-2S1; 4-744 5-97; 5-234; 5-478; 5-612; 6-488; 9-42; 9-318; 10-111; 12-130; 12-236 12-495; 13-225; 13-258; 13-638; 13-668; 14-299; 15-79; 15-351; 15-534 15-567; 16-6; 16-131; 16-534; 17-60; 17-128; 17-231; 17-313; 17-423 17-475; 17-521; 17-594; 18-360; 18-440; 19-162; 19-238; 19-323 20-190; 20-631; 21-103; 21-211; 21-329; 21-400'; 23-151; 24-81; 24-125 24-228; 25-185; 25-303; 26-380; 26-456; 27-230; 29-583. Factors and Elements of — What the Traffic Will Bear. 6-488; 13-388; 16-405; 17-552; 18-440; 18-532; 19-513; 21-329; 22-596; 24-249; 24-280. Initiation of by Carrier. 4-1; 15-56; 18-280; 26-204. Interstate Commerce Commission — Duties, Powers and Jurisdiction. 1-152; 1-158; 4-447; 4-535; 5-1; 5-84; 5-97; 5-122; 7-286; 7-323; 7-458 7-612; 8-214; 8-598; 9-382; 10-148; 13-48; 13-366; 14-210; 14-376; 15-1 15-334; 16-95; 16-155; 16-323; -17-197; 17-588; 19-148; 20-307; 21-68 23-519; 24-179; 25-303. Joint Rates. 3-649; 4-251; 4-265; 4-702; 5-44; 6-1; 6-267; 7-323; 10-193; 11-558; 12-163; 12-326; 14-364; 16-155; 17-379; 17-588; 18-154; 20-17; 21-20; 22-274; 24-161; 24-570; 28-154. Joint Rates and Through Routes via Rail-and-water Lines. 2-645; 3-137; 4-265; 10-148; 13-31; 13-542; 20-3; 22-558; 24-179; 24-570; 25-388; 26-380; 27-223; 29-609. Lawful Rate — What Constitutes. S-44; 7-240; 12-418; 12-469; 12-525; 13-154; 13-192; 14-82; 14-376; 16-95; 16-315; 16-436; 17-113; 18-154; 18-261. Lawful Rate Not Varied by Contract or Representation. 6-85; 9-216; 12-418; 12-469; 15-27; 15-109; 23-438. Manner of Establishment of. 1-158; 4-664; 4-694; 5-44; 6-36; 6-488; 7-43; 7-255; 7-556; 8-110; 8-214; 9-182; 10-55; 12-326; 13-266; 14-82; 14-340; 15-504; 16-315; 17-22; 17-588; 18-234; 22-283. INDEX TO POINTS DECIDED. Mixed Carloads. ,5-122; 9-440; 12-438; 17-SS2; 2S-442. Power of Commission to Increase Rates. 1-1S8; 2-231; 15-491; 17-98; 21-490; 23-652. Proportional Rates. 6-267; 7-513; 9-581; 14-563; 16-56; 17-54; 17-354; 18-554; 21-546; 22-62; 23-672; 24-372; 25-50; 28-47; 28-64. Raw Material and Manufactured Products Thereof. 3-252; 3-435; 4-158; 4-281; 4-417; 4-611; 6-335; 8-214; 10-35; 10-428 11-212; 11-220; 11-227; 12-258; 12-388; 14-272; 14-340; 14-356; 14-398 15-351; 16-73; 16-405; 18-113; 20-37; 21-171; 21-490; 22-160; 22-513 23-110; 23-527; 24-134; 24-588; 26-373; 26-472. Reasonableness of — General Principles. 4-611; 5-514; 6-632; 7-92; 7-255; 8-277; 9-17; 9-160; 9-182; 9-318; 9-382 10-505; 11-382; 12-258; 12-381; 12-525; 13-87; 13-651; 14-23; 14-61 14-199; 14-376; 14-597; 14-604; 15-109; 15-286; 15-326; 15-376; 15-453 15-555; 16-56; 16-300; 17-313; 18-1; 18-3; 18-5; 18-234; 18-440; 19-128 19-148; 19-513; 19-598; 20-239; 20-243; 20-307; 20-463; 21-211; 22-11 22-422; 22-604; 23-140; 23-474; 24-55; 24-134; 24-249; 24-280; 24-312 25-193; 25-342; 25-675; 26-53; 26-85; 27-71; 27-152; 27-370; 27-673 28-178. Reasonableness of as Affected by Agreement of Carriers to Establish or Advance. 6-195; 10-505; 10-548; 12-236; 12-381; 12-451; 15-453; 16-323; 17-430; 20-463; 22-640; 26-689. Reasonableness of — Elements and Factors Determining. 1-503; 2-147; 2-272; 2-315; 3-252; 4-588; 5-156; 5-193; 5-324; 6-488; 10-548; 11-220; 11-238; 11-296; 11-627; 13-657; 14-23; 14-299; 15-453; 16-182; 18-113; 20-631; 21-22; 21-81; 23-7; 23-110; 23-345; 27-24; 27-125; 27-661; 27-673. Reasonableness of — Elements — Carrier's Financial Condition. 6-131; 7-69; 7-92; 8-158; 8-409; 9-264; 10-505; 10-548; 11-464; 12-233; 12-339; 12-351; 13-1; 14-1; 14-23; 15-376; 20-243; 20-307; 20-406; 20-463; 21-129; 22-578; 22-640; 24-50; 25-669; 27-54. Reasonableness of — Elements — Comparison of Local and Through Rates. 1-31; 1-152; 1-480; 2-25; 2-315; 2-389; 2-540; 2-553; 2-584; 2-618; 3-252; 3-450; 3-534; 4-195; 4-535; 5-571; 6-458; 7-323; 8-377; 9-17; 12-250 14-563; 15-555; 17-354; 18-554; 23-672; 24-125. Reasonableness of — Elements — Per Ton-mile Revenue. 2-52; 2-73; 3-534; 4-79; 8-277; 11-640; 12-73; 12-223; 12-339; 12-351 12-457; 12-530; 13-240; 13-319; 13-357; 13-620; 14-23; 14-35; 14-216 14-287; 14-476; 14-516;- 14-575; 15-79; 15-305; 15-351; 15-504 15-534 16-12; 16-56; 16-106; 16-369; 16-387; 16-452; 16-572; 17-359; 18-88 20-43; 20-191; 20-239; 20-554; 21-22; 21-103; 21-222; 21-230 22-84 22-131; 22-138; 22-141; 22-239; 22-604; 22-640; 23-121; 23-519; 24-140 24-220; 24-686; 25-78; 25-303; 25-669; 25-680; 26-140; 26-181 27-152i 27-210; 28-38; 28-467. Reasonableness of — Elements — State-made Rates 7-69; 7-601; 8-33; 11-458; 12-265; 12-351; 14-150; 14-376; 16-572; 18-415; 20-100; 22-138; 22-405; 22-422; 23-31; 24-50; 25-680; 26-104; 26-272- 27-83; 27-168. Reasonableness of— Elements— Use to Which Commodity is Put 5-466; 8-630; 12-215; 13-651; 17-139; 17-197; 17-471; 18-212; 19-592- 20-239; 20-426; 21-41; 22-394; 24-545. ' <= > ly oy^. Reasonableness of — For Large or Bulky Articles 15-301; 15-370; 15-504; 17-72; 18-150; 18-165; 18-185; 18-208; 22-467. Reasonableness of — Per Se. 1-31; 1-152; 1-215; 1-230; 1-225; 1-436; 1-480; 2-231; 2-375; 4-79- 4-299- 6-1; 6-131; 6-548; 7-431; 8-346; 11-90; 11-486; 14-150; 28-193; '28-677! Reasonableness of Local Rate. 2-584; 5-478; 16-300; 16-550; 17-354; 18-554; 21-546. INDEX TO POINTS DECIDED. Reasonableness of Proportion of Through Rate. 2-553; 5-97; 5-571; 6-1; 8-598; 13-225; 14-98; 14-476; 15-351; 16-56; 17-354; 18-113; 18-154; 19-238; 21-124; 22-578; 25-241; 27-83; 28-64; 28-154. Reasonableness of — Relative. 2-231; 2-324; 4-79; 6-488; 6-548; 7-386; 7-431; 8-346; 9-581; 11-180 13-31; 13-266; 14-398; 14-476; 15-11; 16-12; 16-534; 17-273; 17-479 17-533; 18-113; 18-175; 18-562; 18-593; 18-601; 19-156; 19-238; 19-303 19-458; 19-460; 20-3; 20-37; 20-554; 22-160; 22-429; 22-513; 23-7; 23-31 23-195; 23-656; 23-679; 24-55; 24-380; 24-594; 24-686; 25-241; 26-181 26-265; 28-193; 28-677. Reasonableness of — Standard of Tests. 1-436; 2-25; 2-375; 12-223; 15-79; 15-286; 15-376; 15-460; 19-218; 19-513; 20-243; 21-329; 22-90; 22-422; 25-675. Reasonableness of — Tested by Comparison. 1-31; 1-215; 1-230; 1-401; 2-131; 2-147; 2-272; 2-604; 3-225; 4-1; 5-156^ 5-264; 6-121; 6-131; 6-195; 6-520; 11-495; 12-130; 12-4U; 12-427; 12-451 13-620; 13-633; 14-216; 15-586; 17-354; 18-299; 18-554; 19-162; 19-218 19-238; 21-113; 21-389; 21-546; 22-349; 22-391; 22-422; 22-548; 22-604 23-31; 24-140; 24-606; 26-341; 26-402; 26-638; 26-689; 27-125; 25-173 27-370; 27-673; 28-76. Reasonableness of — Tested by Difference in Charge for Carriage in Op- posite Directions. 6-85; 9-642; 11-627; 13-501; 13-668; 15-595; 17-231; 18-548; 24-331; 26-520; 28-82. Reasonableness of — Tested by Comparison of Present and Past Rates. 2-573; 2-604; 4-48; 4-535; 5-29; 8-214; 8-561; 9-264; 9-440; 10-505 10-548; 12-130; 12-210; 12-381; 13-46; 13-357; 13-668; 14-1; 14-23 14-61; 14-121; 14-299; 14-398; 15-11; 15-49; 15-56; 15-59; 15-70; 15-79 15-305; 15-504; 15-546; 16-95; 16-100; 17-231; 17-313; 17-324-; 17-430; 17-503 18-53; 18-67; 18-352; 18-360; 18-405; 18-601; 19-354; 19-460; 20-43 20-423; 20-631; 21-171; 21-222; 21-248; 21-323; 21-569; 22-149; 22-252 23-527; 23-652; 25-141; 26-179; 26-380; 26-402; 27-11; 28-47; 28-589 28-677. Relative Rates Between Localities. 1-24; 1-215; 2-25; 6-647; 7-386; 8-608; 9-606; 11-180; 14-294; 15-11 15-49; 15-59; 16-12; 19-218; 19-303; 19-424; 19-460; 20-33; 21-124; 21-215 21-222; 21-230; 22-62; 22-84; 22-SO; 22-239; 23-98; 23-195; 24-55; 24-96 24-177; 24-228; 24-280; 24-231; 24-674; 24-678; 24-686; 28-173; 28-178. 6-85; 10-255; 13-258; 13-550; 15-332; 18-180; 19-79; 20-419; 21-8. Through Rate vs. Sum of Locals. 1-199; 1-629; 3-450; 4-251; 7-69; 7-601; 8-377; 9-17; 11-486; 12-265 12-498; 12-525; 13-1; 13-154; 13-192; 13-601; 14-109; 14-150; 14-299 14-573; 15-1; 15-555; 16-6; 16-293; 16-410; 17-115; 17-231; 17-288; 17-488 18-73; 18-144; 18-261; 18-364; 19-15; 19-493; 20-132; 21-215;- 21-533 23-195; 23-345; 24-372; 24-570; 25-193; 26-456; 28-64; 28-193; 29-583. Through Rate Defined. 2-553; 6-1; 8-277; 9-581; 12-163; 13-154. Through Rate — Carrier's Duty to Establish. 7-323; 8-377; 11-558; 12-29; 12-32; 13-243; 14-51; 14-191; 14-364; 16-219; 21-14; 22-93; 23-256; 24-179; 24-634; 24-639; 27-6; 27-71; 27-223. Unreasonableness of — Evidence of. 1-230; 4-296; 6-295; 6-632; 12-258; 13-56; 13-501; 14-121; 15-11; 15-49; 18-144; 18-212; 20-43; 27-24. Rebates and Concessons. 4-630; 13-501; 23-535. INDEX TO POINTS DECIDED. Reduced Rate for Transportation of Property — Also Free Rate. General. 15-543; 17-197; 21-270; 25-442; 26-491. Legality of. 1-lS; S-69; S-153; 7-83; 7-92; 12-10; 12-15; 12-39; 16-246; 26-491. Regulations for. 5-69. Returned Movement of Shipment. 13-128; 19-409; 23-432. What Constitutes. 1-15; 1-24; 2-301; 2-359. Refrigeration and Ventilation — Charges Therefor. Duty of Carrier to Furnish. 6-295; 10-360; 11-129; 12-178; 20-106; 23-267. General. 16-106; 17-552; 19-148; 20-106; 22-11; 22-149; 22-303; 23-267. Jurisdiction of Commission. 10-360; 11-129. Publication of. 13-516; 24-651. Reasonableness of. 10-255; 11-129; 12-178; 14-476; 17-423; 20-106; 24-651. Reparation and Damages. Damage to Shipment or Delay in Transit. 6-85; 17-125; 17-361; 21-8; 24-651. Jurisdiction of Commission. 1-339; 1-428; 4-265; 5-84; 5-97; 5-529; 10-83; 12-308; 13-192; 13-366; 14-199; 15-37; 15-53; 15-147; 15-334; 16-95; 17-125; 17-361; 18-132, 20-520. Measure of Damages. 6-632; 8-158; 8-561; 11-619; 13-668; 15-480; 20-606; 23-186. Misrouting of Shipment. 12-418; 12-535; 15-170 15-235; 17-443; 18-92; 18-132; 18-249; 18-299; 18-548; 20-520; 20-646; 21-451; 22-349. Overcharge in Rate or Weight. 6-36; 18-249; 18-485; 20-598; 24-360. Parties Entitled to. 6-378; 10-83; 14-199; 20-606; 21-20; 21-45; 21-533; 21-596; 21-605; 22-346; 24-598; 26-373; 27-302. Pecuniary Damages. 1-495; 1-594; 15-53; 17-9. Practice and Procedure Before Commission in Claims For. 6-335; 6-378; 6-455; 6-632; 7-513; 8-158; 10-83; 10-226; 13-411; 13-668; 14-195; 15-33; 15-147; 15-170; 15-235; 15-274; 15-334; 16-285; 17-58; 17-251; 17-280; 17-359; 17-508; 18-1; 18-67; 18-389; 18-430; 18-517 19-354; 19-551; 19-592; 19-611; 20-43; 20-423; 20-606; 21-45; 21-569; 21-596; 23-483; 27-32; 27-302; 28-332. Principles Governing Award of. 5-612; 7-255; 8-158; 8-561; 8-630; 10-226; 12-418; 12-457; 12-483; 12-520; 13-329; 13-366; 13-516; 13-657; 13-668; 14-82; 14-195; 14-537; 15-33- 15-37; 15-147; 15-235; 15-238; 15-326; 15-334; 15-434; 16-95; 16-289- 16-293; 17-90; 17-251; 17-573; 18-25; 18-144; 18-389; 18-430; 18-517 19-354; 19-551; 19-592; 20-43; 20-419; 20-423; 20-539; 20-600; 21-20' 21-41; 21-45; 21-113; 21-211; 22-277; 22-439; 24-81; 24-315- 25-193- 25-216; 25-675; 26-638; 27-11; 27-32; 27-165; 27-302; 28-332. Speculative. 5-97; 13-501. INDEX TO POINTS DECIDED. Routes and Routing. Carrier's Right and Duty as to. 2-131; 3-658; 6-267; 7-323; 11-481; 11-SS8; 12-326; 12-418; 12-469 12-S3S; 13-286; 13-342; 15-170; 15-192; 15-235; 15-627; 16-385; 17-280 17-443; 17-508; 18-92; 18-132; 18-249; 18-299; 18-285; 18-548; 20-646 21-14; 22-349; 22-405; 24-96; 28-398; 29-585; 29-609. Discrimination in Through Routes. 13-460; 14-364; 25-388. Power of Commission in re Through Routes and Joint Rates. 3-1; 6-647; 7-323; 7-376;' 11-108; 12-326; 12-471; 13-20; 13-225; 13-460; 14-51; 14-364; 15-491; 16-219; 16-300; 20-486; 22-39; 24-89; 24-179; 25-388; 26-215; 28-280; 28-621; 29-609. Shipper's. Right to Route. 3-658; 9-182; 14-476. Through Route Defined. 2-25; 2-131; 2-553; 4-265; 4-535; 6-1; 7-431; 8-121; 10-193; 12-163; 12-326; 16-300; 17-225. Through Route — General. 11-558; 12-29; 12-32; 12-326; 13-1; 13-243; 13-250; 13-329; 13-460; 13-542; 14-51; 16-219; 19-162; 20-486; 22-39; 22-264; 23-17; 24-55; 24-161; 24-179; 24-634; 24-639; 27-6; 27-223; 28-154; 28-219; 28-502; 29-585. Tariffs or Rate Schedule — Freight. Construction of. 4-447; 6-267; 15-192; 15-228; 16-341; 18-310; 19-238; 19-513; 20-559. General. 1-626; 2-324; 4-104; 7-255; 15-235; 16-376; 17-22; 18-242; 19-108; 20-527; 24-360. Responsibility of Carrier Under. 1-199; 12-549; 14-250; 18-242; 20-17; 20-559; 21-14; 22-274. What Schedule Shall State. 1-626; 3-19; 6-267; 6-568; 14-619; 14-631; 15-228; 16-315. Terminal Facilities, Regulations and Charges. Carrier's Duty as to Loading and Unloading. 12-85; 14-154; 14-410; 17-596; 18-234; 18.271; 18-540; 19-513; 21-620; 23-417; 24-179; 25-442; 26-226. Demurrage Charges — General. 11-166; 12-61; 12-178; 12-561; 14-170; 14-178; 15-1; 15-160; 16-116; 17-123; 17-457; 18-7; 18-25; 18-38; 20-153; 21-60; 24-651; 25-216. Demurrage and Car Service — Discrimination in. 8-531; 16-116; 25-216. Demurrage and Car Service — Duty of Shipper or Consignee to Pay. 5-84. Demurrage and Car Service — Free Time Allowance. 8-531; 14-178; 17-123; 17-457; 17-496; 18-38; 21-176; 25-216. Demurrage and Car Service — Legality of Assessment. 5-84; 13-192; 13-378; 14-178; 15-1; 15-160; 16-116; 17-27; 17-392; 18-7; 18-414; 19-54; 19-556; 20-559. Demurrage and .Car Service — Reasonableness of Charges. 8-531; 11-166. Discrimination in Charges and Service. 1-107; 3-613; S-S7; 5-84; 6-36; 7-194; 7-513; 7-556; 10-173; 11-422 12-114; 12-144; .12-479; 12-507; 13-460; 16-116; 17-361; 17-496; 18-38 18-271; 20-200; 20-458; 21-81; 21-620; 22-540; 23-13; 23-474; 24-290 24-660; 25-403; 28-621; 29-114. Jurisdiction of Commission. 7-194; 8-531; 10-173; 10-378; 11-82; 11-438; 12-61; 12-144; 14-170; 14-410; 15-443; 16-587; 17-40; 18-25; 18-310; 20-458; 20-486; 20-527; 23-417; 23-474; 28-621. INDEX TO POINTS DECIDED. Plant Facility Service. 14-237; 14-246; 15-248; 16-323; 17-338; 18-310; 20-450; 23-277; 27-353; 29-212. Publication of. 6-36; 8-531; 10-352; 14-237; 18-234; 20-527. Reasonableness of. 1-107; 10-352; 11-277; 11-296; 12-479; 14-170; 14-178; 18-310; 21-81; 23-256; 24-220; 26-638; 28-621. Receipt and Delivery. 11-82; 11-166; 11-277; 11-422; 12-144; 14-237; 14-440; 14-619; 16-558; 17-40; 17-392; 17-596; 18-234; 18-310; 21-60; 21-620; 24-292; 24-629; 25-442; 26-226; 26-561; 29-212. Rules Governing Terminal Service. 10-378; 12-114; 14-410; 19-513. Side Tracks. 7-194; 11-438; 16-587. Storage. 7-556; 10-352; 13-288; 14-170; 14-178; 16-116; 18-25; 21-176; 21-458. Switches and Switching Service. 7-194; 12-479; 12-507; 13-418; 13-573; 14-191; 14-237; 15-443; 18-310; 20-486; 21-620; 22-540; 23-474; 24-292; 24-660; 26-240; 27-24; 27-71; 28-621; 29-212. Terminal Expense as Factor in Rate. 1-107;- 3-252; 6-36; 12-381; 13-657; 15-555; 18-310; 19-513; 25-680; 27-24. Terminal Service Usually Included in Rate of Freight. ' 11-277; 12-479; 12-507; 18-310. Wharfs and Wharfage. 14-250; 20-200; 23-417; 23-535; 25-136; 27-388. Transit Privileges. Compression of Cotton. 3-534; 12-312; 12-375; 16-131; 17-12; 17-98. Discrimination in. 7-240; 8-377; 12-312; 12-375; 13-187; 14-376; 16-232; 16-590; 17-60; 17-573; 18-280; 19-156; 19-522; 20-43; 21-186; 21-257; 21-637; 22-178; 22-239; 23-672; 25-71; 26-226; 29-565. Establishment of. 1-31; 1-401; 15-370; 19-285; 19-409; 19-535; 20-43; 21-97; 23-151; 24-340; 26-226. Jurisdiction of Commission. 11-90; 15-138; 16-232; 21-97; 23-151; 24-340; 25-71; 26-204; 27-114. Milling-in-transit. 9-311; 14-3S6r 15-138; 16-382; 17-12; 18-280; 21-97; 24-96; 24-134- 24-340; 24-552; 24-609; 27-530. Publication of Charges. 8-121; 12-210; 14-631; 15-33; 15-434; 16-558; 17-220; 19-285. Reasonableness of Charges. 11-90; 11-486; 19-533; 21-257; 23-151; 25-71; 25-392; 28-7. Reconsignment Privileges. 2-604; 7-240; 7-377; 11-90; 11-486; 12-525; 12-561;. 15-33; 15-235; 15-546; 16-387; 16-558; 17-60; 19-478; 19-533; 21-186; 21-257; 22-75; 25-392; 27-114; 29-609. Stoppage-in-transit. 3-450; 6-647; 8-121; 10-193; 11-90; 12-210; 12-375; 13-187; 14-121- 14-376- 16-232; 19-285; 24-340; 24-609; 26-204. . -^ . INDEX TO POINTS DECIDED. Transportation Service and Facilities. Carrier's Duty as to. 1-594; 2-162; 2-324; 3-577; 6-295; 8-333; 12-144; 12-178; 12-196; 12-277; 13-1; 15-15; 15-286; 15-620; 16-300; 17-40; 17-60; 17-379; 18-310; 18-545; 22-303; 24-1; 25-159; 25-442; 26-215; 26-681; 29-114; 29-609. Carrier's Duty to Furnish. 1-594; 2-162; 2-324; 3-243; 3-577; 13-651; 14-364; 15-460; 17-379. Carrier's Regulations for. 20-498. Defined. 1-15; 3-592; 6-295; 6-458; 14-237; 14-246; 15-248; 20-200; 20-450; 23-417; 25-136; 26-226; 27-353. Discrimination in Furnishing. 1-594; 15-620; 20-200. Liability for Safe Transportation. 3-577; 15-53; 19-513; 20-498. Practice and Usage. 3-613; 14-604. Special or Expedited. 15-305; 15-432; 25-159. Through. 8-121; 15-595. Weights and Weighing. Carload — Rules Governing. 7-255; 14-75; 14-631; 21-632; 28-7. Discrimination in. . 9-440; 12-462; 28-7. Estimated. 5-193; 6-36; 8-571; 12-306; 13-115; 13-516; 13-620; 16-376; 18-150; 18-212; 20-60; 25-442. Gross. 4-87; 28-7. Jurisdiction of Commission. 13-115. Loading Capacity of Commodity. 5-122; 12-462; 12-549; 17-72. Manner of Determining. 5-514; 13-115; 13-620; 14-75; 20-60; 20-598; 21-632; 28-7. Minimum. 12-462; 12-549; 13-620; 14-561; 14-597; 14-631; 15-301; 15-349; 15-376 15-504; 16-56; 16-106; 16-134; 16-208; 16-285; 17-72; 17-297; 17-322 17-533; 18-545; 19-15; 19-513; 20-72; 21-181; 21-451; 22-160; 22-432 23-226; 23-398; 25-185; 28-7. KF 2172 .5 U58 Author Vol. Bishop, Alvord L. Title Copy Date Borrower's Name