At 209; Babbitt v. Grand Trunk Western Ry. (Ill., 1918), 120 N. E. 803. Precos & N. T. Ry. Co. v. Meyer (Texas 1913), 155 S. W. 309, 311; Currie v. Louisville & N. R. Co. (Ala. 1921), 90 Sou. 313; Davis v. Dawkins (Ala. 1922), 95 Sou. 118; Arkansas Central R. Co. v. McCuen, (Ark. 1921), 234 S. W. 617; Farr v. St. Louis Southwestern Ry. Co. (Ark. 1922), 243 S. W. 800; American Fruit Distributors v. Hines, (Calif. 1921), 203 Pac. 821; Payne v. Monroe (Ga. 1921) 110 S. E. 34; Thomas Canning Co. v. Southern Pac. Co. (Mich. 1922), 189 N. W. 210; Erisman v. Wabash Ry. Co. (Mo. 1922), 243 S. W. 237; Grover v. Hines, (Mont. 1923), 213 Pac. 250; Payne v. White House Lumber Co. (Tex. 1921), 231 S. W. 417; San Antonio Southern Ry. Co. v. Burd, (Tex. 1923), 246 S. W. 1060, 1061; William F. Mosser Co. v. Payne, (W. Va. 1922), 114 S. E. 365; Russo v. Davis, 285 Fed. 231. $172. Counter Claims. IMPORTANT CASES SINCE 1908 (a) In an action by a railroad Company for freight charges, defendant held entitled to counterclaim for damages for goods lost on other shipments. Chicago & N. W. Ry. Co. v. E. C. Tecktonius Mfg. Co. (Wis., 1920), 262 F. 715. ALL OTHER CITATIONS cuting or pressing the claim are generally admissible on the question of intent. and he may also testify as to his intention. Laser Grain Co. v. United States 250 Fed. 826. (b) Released rates and rates based on declared values limit the liability of carriers for loss, damage, or injury to property transported. If carriers could the value declared would be a part of lawfully base rates upon declared values, the description of the commodity and the shipper who, by undervaluing, securwould be guilty of violating section 10 of the act, and by claiming full value in himself to prosecution. North Pack. & case of loss or damage, would subject Prov. Co. v. C. M. & St. P. Ry. Co., 69 I. C. C. 241. ed a lower rate than he was entitled to ALL OTHER CITATIONS Claims for Loss and Damage of Grain, 48 I. C. C. 530, 568, 561, 537. LOTTERY TICKETS CASES 1887-1908 (a) A ticket in a lottery authorized at the place of issue is not within the protection of the interstate commerce clause of the Federal Constitution,-especially in view of the legislation of Congress touching lotteries; and an aChicago & N. W. Ry. Co. v. E. C.greement between the holders of differTecktonius Mfg. Co. (Wis., 1920), 262 F. ent tickets to share the price that the 715, 716. ticket of any member might draw is to be tested by the law of the state in which the agreement is made, and not by the laws of the state where the lottery is located. Roselle v. McAuliffe, 7 I. C. C. App. XI. §18. Filing of tariffs. See Tariffs. IMPORTANT CASES SINCE 1908 (a) While the carrier's liability for losses must be determined, not by the Commission, but by the courts, yet to insure uniformity and to avoid unjust discrimination rules or practices concerning liability for loss or damage should be shown in the tariffs lawfully filed by carriers engaged in interstate transportation. Crouch Grain Co. v. A. T. & S. F. Ry. Co., 41 I. C. C. 717, 719. IV. CRIMINAL LIABILITY. §19. In general. See Crimes. (b) A ticket in a lottery authorized at the place of issue is not within the protection of the interstate commerce clause of the United States Constitution. The court says: The people of the State of Missouri have the inherent, sole, and exclusive right to regulate the internal government and police thereof subject to the paramount force of the Federal laws. The Federal laws do not sanction the agreement here in question or add anything towards improving its legal quality as determined by the local IMPORTANT CASES SINCE 1908 law. A ticket in a lottery authorized (a) Where it was asserted that a at the place of issue cannot certainly be claim against a railroad company was regarded as within the protection of the fraudulent and that the pressing of the interstate commerce clause of the Fedclaim was a violation of the Act to Reg-eral Constitution; certainly not in view ulate Commerce, §10, par. 3, as amend- of the legislation of Congress touching ed, the acts and sayings of one prose- lotteries. Roselle v. Farmers' Bank of Norborne (McAuliffe Inte), 7 I. C. C. in prescribing under ordinary circumApp. Page c. stances and conditions. The Commission (c) A ticket in a lottery authorized held, there is nothing to warrant it at the place of issue is not within the in requiring any railroad transporting protection of the interstate commerce the mails to perform the service at less clause of the United States Constitution. than fair and reasonable compensation. The court says: "The people of the State Railway Mail Pay, 56 I. C. C. 1, 46, 47. of Missouri 'have the inherent, sole, and exclusive right to regulate the internal commercial life of the nation that the (d) It is essential to the social and government and police thereof' subject mails be handled promptly and transto the paramount force of the Federal ported rapidly, and to insure this it is laws. . The Federal laws do not sanction the agreement here in question, of the mails be lodged with the Postmasnecessary that control of transportation or add anything toward improving its legal quality as determined by the lo- ter General. Railway-Mail Pay, 56 I. C. C. 1, 68. cal law. A ticket in a lottery, authorized at the place of issue, cannot certain- (e) It is in the interest of the governly be regarded as within the protection ment to have the compensation for transof the interstate commerce clause of the portation of the mails fixed on a basis Federal Constitution; certainly not in that will enable the Post Office Departview of the legislation of Congress touch- ment to so supervise the service as will ing lotteries." Roselle v. Farmers' Bank insure a wise and judicious expenditure of Norborne, McAuliffe, 8 I. C. C. App. LXXV. MAILS CASES 1887-1908 of the public money, and at the same time encourage the use of railroad facilitie so as to minimize economic waste. Railway-Mail Pay, 56 I. C. C. 1, 68. an (f) There is every reason from (a) Failure of a railroad company economic stand point why the railroads to run any other trains than their reg- should continue to perform side, terminular passenger trains for carrying the als, and transfer service. It is a most mail is not a violation of law; but fail-important service to the public. The peoure or refusal to carry mails on regu-ple have to pay for it in the end. The lar passenger trains, whether local or arrangement that will result in the least through trains, upon which they are expenditure of the public money, and at required to carry mails, is unlawful. Re the same time do justice to the railroads, Charge to Grand Jury (No. 1) (D. C. S. should be adopted. Railway-Mail Pay, D. Cal.), 4 I. C. R. 777. 56 I. C. C. 1, 70. IMPORTANT CASES SINCE 1908 (g) The mail business of electric rail(aa) The total compensation paid for roads generally is unimportant. The transportation of mail is made up of a manner of transportation and the manner multitude of separate payments and ser- in which the mails are tendered to the vices, differing fundamentally in nature, carriers present the main difficulties encost, and value, performed in varying de-countered in the past. Extreme cases gree by different lines, the relation of may not, with propriety, be used as the which to the total is subject to constant basis for payment generally. It is on the change, and which, taken as a whole, is general average conditions that the genconstantly on the increase. Railway eral bases and rates must be establishMail Pay, 56 I. C. C. 1, 15, 16. ed. Electric Railway Mail Pay 58 I. C. (b) The Post Office Department should C. 455, 476. be charged with whatever the service necessarily requires in the operation of trains and cars, but beyond this limitation any charges of space may not, with propriety, be made against the mail service. Railway Mail Pay, 56 I. C. C. 35, 38. (c) The carriers have claimed that railroads may be required to transport mail for the Government at rates lower than the Commission would be justified (h) The contention of the department that because of the public nature of the mails and the public character of the carriers lower than fair and reasonable rates may properly be prescribed for the electric lines, is not upheld by the Commission, as although they should have due consideration, they do not justify the Commission in prescribing unreasonably low rates for such service. Electric Railway Mail Pay 58 I. C. C. 455, 476. ALL OTHER CITATIONS Railway-Mail Pay, 56 I. C. C. 1, 6, 8, 13, 15, 16, 24, 25, 35, 38, 46, 47, 60, 61 63, 65, 66, 68, 70, 72, 75, 76, 77, 78, 20, 26, 39, 41; Electric Railway Mail Pay, 58 I. C. C. 445, 447, 458, 460, 461, 463, 478, 484. MANDAMUS See Courts, §3. MARINE INSURANCE See Insurance. IMPORTANT CASES SINCE 1908 (a) Joint tariffs limited liability for marine risk on shipments moving rail and water. Subsequently tariffs amended to include marine insurance in the rate for full value, the same as provided on shipments moving all rail. HELD: Subsequent amendment amounted in effect to a voluntary reduction in the rate by amount of insurance premiums, but such voluntary reduction is not of itself sufficient ground for a finding that the rate previously in effect unreasonable. Old Dominion Co. v. Director General, as Agent, 63 I. C. C. 43. ALL OTHER CITATIONS was transported for export into and received from Mexico and for delivery at El Paso than is charged at points between that city and the points where the freights originate and where the distance and haul are shorter. Re Petition of the Receivers of the Texas and Pacific R. Co. 1, I. C. R. 30. IMPORTANT CASES SINCE 1908 (b) The Commission has no authority to establish a rate of transportation in Mexico; nor to order the maintenance of a rate for the future from a point in the United States to a point in Mexico; but it may require the American carriers to cease and desist from continuing to apply a joint through rate, or any rule, regulation, or practice in connection with that joint through rate, and it may, where such rate has been voluntarily maintained, inquire whether it has been reasonable, and if found unreasonable, award damages in that behalf. International Nickel Co. v. Director General 66 I. C. C. 627, 629. (c) Complainant attacked charges assessed on coke, carloads, shipped from Gardner and Koehler, N. M., and Segundo, Colo., to Cananea, Mexico, between June 25 and July 24, 1918, as inapplicable, unjust and unreasonable. Shipments moved to Naco, Ariz., 654, 658 and 688 miles, beyond Naco they were hauled 20 miles within Mexico via the S. P. Wyman, Partridge & Co. v. B. & M. R. R., 15 I. C. C. 577, 578, 583; Public Utilities Commission of the State of Colorado v. A. T. & S. F. Ry., 55 I. C. C. 374. MARKET COMPETITION See Advanced Rates $13; Compe- Complainant relies upon its contention tition; Discrimination $4, $7, that the rates attacked were unlawful to §8 (7); Equalization §3, §4, §5 establish their unreasonableness. These §6; Evidence §312, §32; Long rates were initiated by the president, and Short Hauls, §4, §8; Rea-acting through the Director General, in sonableness of Rates, §8 (12); conformity with the federal control act Reduced Rates, §6%; Through and the act to regulate commerce. They Routes and Joint Rates §8. were lawfully established under the act MARKING AND ADDRESSING which is administed by the CommisSee Classification, §14; Express sion and it is without jurisdiction to deCompanies, §32. termine whether they were or were not lawfully established under the laws of Mexico. HELD, rates charged not unreasonable, complaint dismissed. Greene Cananea Copper Co. v. Director General, 80 I. C. C. 121. MEXICO See Adjacent Foreign Country. CASES 1887-1908 (a) The "circumstances and conditions" touching the transportation of passeng(d) Contention that rates from points ers and freight to and from the Re-in United States to point in Mexico, inpublic of Mexico through El Paso, Texas, creased under General Order No. 28 of by the Texas & Pacific R. Co. are (with- general director, were unlawful since in the meaning of section 4 of the Inter-laws of Mexico require publication of state Commerce Act) so substantially increased rates for 30 days before bedifferent from those surrounding transportation to other points on said railway as to justify said Company in establishing lower rates at El Paso on freights coming effective, not sustained. Rates assailed were lawfully established under acts administered by commission, which is without jurisdiction to determine whether or not they were lawfully established under laws of Mexico. Greene Cananea Copper Co. v. Director General, as Agent, 80 I. C. C., 121. (e) The authority of the Commission to award reparation is questioned because part of the transportation took place in Mexico. The rates attacked are joint rates and all carriers parties to such rates are jointly and severally liable for any damage resulting from their application. United States Graphite Co. v. Director General, 88 I. C. C. 157, 159. MILEAGE SCALE See Cars and Car Supply, §7%, §114; Distance Rates; Evidence $58, §59; Passenger Fares and Facilities §6. MILLING See Facilities and Privileges, §92. MINIMUM RATES See Classification §15. Interstate Commerce Commission $10. IMPORTANT CASES SINCE 1908 (f) The Commission has no authority to establish a rate of transportation in (ab) Once a minimum rate is fixed on Mexico; nor to order the maintenance of traffic between two points the ability of a rate for the future from a point in carriers in the exercise of judgment in the United states to a point in Mexico; but it may require the American car- management to stimulate such traffic by riers to cease and desist from continuing reductions in rates is limited and curtailto apply a joint through rate, or any imum rates can in some situations be ed. No doubt the power to fix such minrule, regulation, or practice in connection with that joint through rate, and it employed to advantage and with promay, where such rate has been voluntar- priety, for the purpose of averting rate ily maintained, inquire whether it has wars, which are always injurious to the been reasonable, and if found unreason-carriers and ordinarily, in the long run, able, award damages in that behalf. to the public interest, or for the purpose American Splint Corporation v. C. P. Ry., 88 I. C. C. 221. (g) As the purpose of the original merely to regulate commerce between the several states and compel interstate carriers to make their charges reasonable, section 22, preserving the existing remedies at common law, and as prior to the Carmack Amendment of 1906 to section 20, prescribing a rule of liability in case of interstate shipments, the carriers' liability for such a shipment was either that of the general common law or that determined by the public policy of the particular state, the Interstate Commerce Act prior to the Cummins Amendment, which extended its scope to foreign shipments, did not apply to a shipment from Mexico to Texas. Mexico Northwestern Ry. Co. v. Williams (Tex. 1921), 229 S. W. 476. Interstate Commerce Act of 1887 was ALL OTHER CITATIONS Newark Grain Co. v. S. P. Co., 30 I. C. C. 431, 433; Seymour v. Morgan's L. & T. R. R. & S. S. Co., 35 I. C. C. 492; American Box Co. (Ltd.) v. M. L. & T. R. R. & S. S. Co., 42 I. C. C. 19; Aldrich v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co., 89 S. E. R. 315; Swift & Co. v. U. P. Ry., 49 I. C. C. 336, 337; Early Foster Co. v. S. P. Co., 63 I. C. C. 209. Saginaw & Manistee Lumber Co. v. A. T. & S. F. Ry. Co.; 80 I. C. C. 487. of preventing an unjust burden upon other forms of traffic or upon other be sparingly exercised and only in cases parts of the country. This power should where it clearly appears that its exercise is necessary in order that substantial public injury may be avoided. Sugar cases of 1922. 81 I. C. C. 448, 472. (b) Power to fix minimum rates on traffic between two points can in some situations be employed to advantage and with propriety, for purpose of averting rate wars, which are always injurious to carriers and ordinarily, in long run, to the public interest, or for purpose of preventing unjust burden upon other forms of traffic or upon other parts of the country. This power should, however, be sparingly exercised and only in cases where it clearly appears that its exercise is necessary in order that substantial public injury may be avoided. Sugar Cases of 1922 81 I. C. C., 448, 472. (c) Desire of competitive manufacturing points to be each accorded its "fair share" of business in common destination territory does not, standing alone, justify exercise of commission's power to fix minimum rates. Sugar Cases of 1922, 81 I. C. C. 448, 472. MINIMUM CHARGES of transportation should not be discouraged or retarded by the failure of the shippers facilities to keep pace with the carriers. Natchez Chamber of Commerce v. L. & A. 58 I. C. C. 610, 631. (d) It is the duty of the carriers to publish regulations protecting the minimum applicable in connection with the car ordered, subject to reasonable provisions for the protection of the carriers equipment. Minimum weight on grain and ris based on capacity of car ordered. 60 I. C. C. 318, 320. Two cars for one ordered. $10. Tank cars. 1. APPLICATION OF MINIMUM. §1. See Application of Rates. CASES 1887-1908 (a) Where three connecting roads publish a joint tariff under which they hold themselves out to public as prepared to transport commodities in carload lots of a certain mini the (e) The desirability of uniform minima under appropriate conditions should not be overlooked, but in the absence of any showing to the contrary, it must be assumed that the higher minimum is reasonably intended to comport with the loading capacity of the car. Cairo Association of Commerce v. Director General, 52 I. C. C. 701, 703. (f) A contention that the phrase in a tariff “highest rate and minimum weight" means the highest rate and highest minimum weight, sustained. Minimum Weight on Live Stock in Mixed Carloads, 64 I. C. C. 546. for (g) In establishing a minimum the transportation of a light and bulky article it is the aim to name a weight which can be loaded under ordinary cir cumstances. Bernard Co. v. Director mum magnitude at a certain specified General, as Agent, 74 I. C. C. 557, 560. rate, such carriers are by their tariff allowed to charge no more than the rate (h) A carload minimum weight reasupon such carload, no matter what equip-onably adapted to the traffic generally ment they may provide for its transpor- should not be increased merely because tation, except as the tariff in specific one shipper, on account of conditions terms provides certain minimum weights for carloads in cars of certain lengths or capacity. Pacific Purchasing Co. v. C. & N. W. Ry. Co. 12 I. C. C. 549. IMPORTANT CASES SINCE 1908 (b) Where different minima exist on a commodity in different states, the Commission cannot undertake to fit the interstate minimum to each. To do so would result in state regulation of interstate commerce. 1915 Western Rate Advance Case, 35 I. C. C. 497, 576. (c) Within reasonable limits it is proper for the carriers themselves to provide the minimum weights to meet economic and commercial conditions, but the Commission does not believe that it should be required of them except under very unusual circumstances. Efforts and progress made by carriers toward greater economy and efficiency in operation by the employment of more modern facilities peculiar to himself, is able to load in excess of the existing minimum thereof. Bernard Coal Co. v. Director General, as Agent, 74 I. C. C. 559, 560. (i) As a practical matter, a car can not be loaded with tank or silo material merely for the purpose of filling it. Only so much of the material can be loaded as is required for the fabrication of tanks or silos making up the shipment. International Lime Co. v. Director General, as Agent, 77 I. C. C. 424. ALL OTHER CITATIONS the Kaye & Carter Lumber Co. v. N. P. Ry. Co., Unrep. Op. 392; Kansas City Hay Dealers' Ass'n v. M. P. Ry. Co., 14 I. C. C. 597, 600, 597, 603; Rail & River Coal Co. v. B. & O. R. R. Co., 14 I. C. C. 86, 90; City of Spokane v. N. P. Ry. Co., 15 I. C. C. 376, 389; La Salle Paper Co V. Mich. Cent. R. R. Co., 16 I. C. C. 149, 150; Ozark Fruit Growers' Ass'n v. St. |
