Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

being maintained and operated in a reasonably safe and adequate condition, and is being managed for the proper rendering of the public service the corporation has undertaken to perform, the conditions under which the service is being rendered, the character and extent of the service, its reasonable requirements and the means, facilities and methods best suited to such service in common use will be considered by the court, together with any other material and pertinent matters available.-State v. Atlantic C. L. R. Co., Fla. 44 So. 213.

[20] Exoneration from obligations as carrier.

Orders of military authorities as justifying discriminations,- see post, § 31, note [53].

That the delay of a train was due to the wilful and unauthorized act of a conductor is no defense to an action against a carrier for its failure to transport a passenger with proper dispatch.- Weed v. Panama R. Co., 17 N Y. 362, affg. s. c. 5 Duer (N. Y.), 193.

That it may involve him in a strike does not excuse the receiver of a railroad from receiving from, and delivering to, a connecting railroad empty or loaded freight cars.— - Beers v. Wabash, St. L. & P. R. Co., 32 Fed. 244.

A carrier cannot refuse to perform its duties as a carrier, in order to compel prepayment of demurrage charges.- Macloon v. Ch. & N. W. R. Co., 3 Inters. Com. R. 452, 711, 5 I. S. C. C. R. 84.

The public obligation of a railroad corporation to run its cars and carry passengers transcends its obligation to its stockholders. It cannot cease to perform these functions for any length of time to beat down the price or conditions of labor. It must pay whatever price is necessary to get the labor with which to perform its public duty.- Matter of Loader, 14 Misc. (N. Y.) 208, 35 N. Y. Supp. 996.

The mere striking of the employees of a railroad will not excuse it from the duty to receive and transport freight.-People v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. Co., 28 Hun (N. Y.), 543.

Unfortunate or improvident management of its finances by a common carrier corporation, and neglect in the maintenance and operation of its line and equipment cannot be held to exempt or excuse the carrier from reasonable compliance with the requirements of the N. Y. Public Service Commissions Law as to safe and adequate service. In re Port Jervis Elect. L., P., G. & R. R. Co. Decided by the N. Y. Public Service Commission for the Second District May 12, 1908.

[ocr errors]

A carrier will not be excused from performing any duty required of it by its charter, on the ground that such performance would be unprofitable.- Savannah & O. Canal Co. v. Shuman, 91 Ga. 400, 17 S. E. 937.

The duty of a carrier as to its bridges is not discharged by purchasing its iron work from reputable manufacturers, but it is bound to inspect and test the bridges from time to time.- Louisville, N. A. & C. R. Co. v. Snyder, 117 Ind. 435, 20 N. E. 284, 3 L. R. A. 434.

A carrier cannot exonerate himself from the obligation to furnish suitable cars and means of transacting his business.- Mason v. Mo. Pac. R. Co., 25 Mo. App. 473.

[21] Sleeping cars considered as cars of carrier.

A Pullman or other special car, whether obtained by the carrier by purchase or by lease, is to every practical intent the car of the carrier.— Pennsylvania R. Co. v. Roy, 102 U. S. 457.

[22] Rules and regulations by carrier.

Rules as to time of asking for transfer,- see post, note [62]. Reasonableness of time limit on transfers,- see post, note [67]. Reasonableness of regulations as to method of operation,- see post § 49, note [31].

In the absence of statutory regulation a carrier is entitled to establish and promulgate reasonable rules and regulations governing the manner in which it will conduct its business, and it follows that the carrier has also the power to alter or modify such rules from time to time as it may deem expedient, upon reasonable notice to the public.-U. S. v. Oregon R. & N. Co., 159 Fed. 975.

A carrier has the right to make and enforce reasonable regulations which may lawfully fix the times, the places, the methods and the forms in which it will receive the various commodities it undertakes to carry, and rules thus adopted are presumptively reasonable.-Platt v. Le Cocq, 158 Fed. 723.

A shipper should not be subjected to unnecessary restriction as to the kind of case or package he shall use.- Rhode Island Egg Co. v L. S. & M. S. R. Co., 6 Inters. Com. R. 176.

Railroad corporations have the right to prescribe the time for reception of freight for transportation.- Bouker v. L. I. R. Co., 89 Hun (N. Y.), 202, 35 N. Y. Supp. 23.

A passenger on a street railroad is not bound by rules of which no reasonable notice has been given to the public.- McGowan v. N. Y City R. Co., 99 N. Y. Supp. 835.

A rule of an express company provided: "Agents at common points must decline to accept for transportation business originating at their offices, destined to exclusive offices of other companies having offices at points of origin." This rule was amended by adding the following, "provided, however, that the said shipment shall not be refused if the shipper

insists upon forwarding it and tenders the Agent the full amount necessary to pay the charges of this company in advance, at its regular local rate, to the point of transfer to the connecting company," etc.- Held, that the rule is open to serious objection inasmuch as it is not only contradictory in its terms, but is certain in practice to have discriminating effect as between shippers who insist upon the transportation, notwithstanding the agent's refusal, and shippers who do not insist upon the transportation after the agent shall have refused the shipments.— Herendeen v. U. S. Exp. Co. Decided by the Public Service Commission of the Second District, Feb. 18, 1908.

Independently of statute, carriers have a right to adopt reasonable rules and regulations as to the places where they will receive freight for transportation.- Rhodes v. No. Pac. R. Co., 34 Minn. 87.

The validity of regulations of a railroad as to its transportation of passengers depends not on their lawfulness, but upon their reasonableness.-State v. Overton, 24 N. J. L. 435.

[23] Nature of passenger tickets.

Mandamus to compel issuance of tickets,- see post, note [47]. Recovery of penalties for refusal to issue mileage books, see post, note [68].

Constitutionality of mileage book acts,- see ante, § 1, note [15]. Whether mileage book acts are regulations of interestate commerce,— see ante, § 25, note [14].

Regulations as to transferability of tickets should be published, see post, 28, note [21].

Effect of failure to file regulation as to tickets,- see post, § 28, note [25].

Discrimination in issuing of passenger tickets,- see post, § 31, note [57].

Issuance of special tickets and mileage,- see post, § 33, notes [18]-[22].

Issuance of party-rate tickets not illegal,- see post, § 33, note [20]. Obligation of carrier to honor tickets of connecting line,- see post,

§ 35, note [22].

Ticket as source of carriers' obligation to carry baggage,- see post, § 38, note [39].

Power of Commission to compel issuance of special tickets,- see post, § 49, note [16].

A passenger ticket is a mere voucher or token that the party holding it has paid his fare.— Quimby v. Vanderbilt, 17 N. Y. 306; Bussman v. Western Transit Co., 9 Misc. (N. Y.) 410, 29 N. Y. Supp. 1066; Nevins V. Bay State Ss. Co., 4 Bosw. (N. Y.) 225.

[24] Private car system not favored.

Carriers' regulations as to transportation of private cars to be published in schedule,- see post, § 28, note [18]

The use of private cars, especially for business purposes, is not favored in law and ought not to be encouraged by the Interstate Commerce Commission.- Carr v. No. Pac. R. Co., 9 Inters. Com. R. 1.

[25] Regulation of rates on single lines and through routes.

The provisions of the Interstate Commerce Act apply alike to rates on a single line and to rates under a through route formed by two or more carriers.- Consolidated F. Co. v. So. Pac. R. Co., 9 Inters. Com. R. 182.

[26] Meaning of term "rate."

[ocr errors]

The word rate," as used in the Interstate Commerce Act, means the net cost to the shipper of the transportation of his property; that is to say, the amount the carrier collects from the shipper and retains.— U. S. v. Ch. & A. R. Co., 148 Fed. 646.

[27] Rebilling rates.

Rules as to reconsignment of freight should be stated in schedules,see post, § 28, note [18].

Additional charge for reconsignment privilege not discrimination,— see post, § 31, note [62].

A true "rebilling rate" is one by which goods received in unbroken carload lots over one line of railroad can be rebilled over the same or another line, completing one continuous trip of the same commodity simply changing the consignee, and altering the destination of the identical shipment, without unloading or handling the freight.-Alabama & V. R. Co. v. R. R. Commission, 86 Miss. 667, 38 So. 356.

[28] Discretion of carrier in fixing rates.

See also post, § 31, note [2].

In fixing rates for differing but analogous services, the carrier has the right to exercise an honest discretion.- Carr v. No. Pac. R. Co., 9 Inters. Com. R. 1.

[29] Just and reasonable rates and charges - Duty to charge. Rates shall not be relatively unreasonable,- see post, §§ 31, 32, 35, 36. Compelling carrier to charge reasonable rate,- see ante, note [3]. General power of the state to regulate rates and charges,- see ante, § 1, note [2].

Switching charges,- see post, § 27, note [14].

Duty of carrier to file and publish schedule of rates,- see post, § 28, note [2].

Duty of carriers not to unduly discriminate as to rates,- see post,

§ 31, note [1].

Discretion of carrier in fixing rates,- see also ante, note [28], post,

§ 31, note [2].

Power of legislature to forbid discriminations,- see post, § 32, note [2].

Indictments for failure to charge the published rate,- see post, § 33, note [2].

Power of Commission to sanction rates which are unreasonable,— see post, § 49, note [8].

Mandamus to compel charging of reasonable rate,- see post, § 57, note [13].

The constitutional requirement of equal protection of the laws does not require that all public utility corporations exacting tolls should be placed on the same footing as to rates, as justice to the public and to the stockholders may require in respect to some road rates very different from those prescribed for other roads and rates on one road may be reasonable and just to all concerned, while on another road the same rates would be exorbitant and unreasonable.- Covington & L. Turnpike Co. v. Sandford, 164 U. S. 578, 17 Sup. Ct. R. (U. S.) 198, revg. s. c. 14 Ky. L. R. 689, 20 S. W. 1031.

The instructions to a receiver of common carrier were: (1) All charges made for any service in the transportation of passengers or property, or for receiving, delivering, storing or handling property, must be reasonable and just. (2) He will not discriminate in his rates, charges and facilities against any connecting line, but will give to both equal rates and facilities for equal service, from all points.- Cutting v. Florida R. & N. Co., 30 Fed. 663.

Charges for icing and refrigeration must be reasonable and just.Matter of Charges for Transportation of Fruit, 11 Interst. Com. R. 129. Where a carrier furnishes ice for refrigeration, and prohibits the shipper from obtaining it from any other source, the price must be reasonable, and that price is a part of the total charge for the transportation service afforded by the carrier.- Re Transportation, etc., of Fruit, 10 Inters. Com. R. 360.

Demurrage and storage charges shall be reasonable and just.- Pennsylvania Millers' Assn. v. Phila. & R. R. Co., 8 Inters. Com. R. 531.

Rates cannot be arbitrarily fixed, in the mere discretion of the carrier, but must be adjusted in the interest of the public, as well as of the carrier.- Lehmann v. So. Pac. R. Co., 2 Inters. Com. R. 548, 3 Inters. Com. R. 80, 4 I. C. C. R. 1.

Where a fast freight line operates over several railroads, which divide the earnings, etc., such roads must at their peril see to it that the rates

« AnteriorContinuar »