Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB
[graphic]

Party-rate tickets are not commutation or excursion tickets, and may not lawfully be sold at less than the contemporaneous rates for single passengers.- Pittsburg, C. & St. L. R. Co. v. B. & O. R. Co., 2 Inters. Com. R. 572, 729, 3 I. C. C. R. 465.

[21] Filing and publication of excursion rates.

Passenger excursion rates must be filed and published under Interst Com. Act, § 6.- Pittsburg, C. & St. L. R. Co. v. B. & O. R. Co., 2 Inters. Com. R. 572, 729, 3 I C. C. R. 465.

[22] Suits as to tickets.

Where a railroad is about to issue nontransferable reduced rate round trip tickets and it appears that certain persons have in the past bought and sold the return coupons of similar tickets and intend to buy and sell the return coupons of the tickets about to be issued, an injunction will lie to prevent such traffic in any tickets which may in the future be issued.- Bitterman v. L. & N. R. Co., 207 U. S. 205, 28 Sup. Ct. R. (U. S.) 91, affg. s. c. 144 Fed. 34.

If one maliciously interferes in a contract between two parties and induces one of them to break that contract to the injury of the other, the party injured can maintain an action against the wrongdoer.Angle v. Ch. St. P. M. & D. R. Co., 151 U. S. 1, 14 Sup. Ct. R. (U. S.) 240.

When railroads issue nontransferable round trip tickets at reduced rates, it is proper to issue an injunction to restrain persons who have in the past and intend in the future to buy and sell the unused return coupons of these tickets from engaging in such traffic.-Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Caffrey, 128 Fed. 770.

A carrier who comes into court asking equity to enforce its rights under special contract tickets must come with clean hands, not as a member of an unlawful pool.-Delaware, L. & W. R. Co. v. Frank, 110 Fed. 689.

On account of a centennial exposition at Nashville, Tenn., various railroads issued low rate nontransferable return tickets to that point. -Held, that an injunction restraining ticket brokers from buying and selling the return coupons of such tickets was proper.- Nashville, C. & St. L. R. Co. v. McConnell, 82 Fed. 65.

[23] Wrongful use of special tickets by passengers.

A person who engages in the business of purchasing and selling nontransferable reduced rate tickets for profit to the injury of the railroad issuing the same commits an actionable wrong in that he interferes in a contract between two parties and induces one of them to break that contract to the injury of the other.- Bitterman v. L. & N. R. Co., 207 U. S. 205, 28 Sup. Ct. R. (U. S.) 91, affg. s. c. 144 Fed. 34.

Where the contract under which a reduced rate round trip ticket is bought provides that the purchaser must before using the return portion of the ticket identify himself at the point of destination before the agent of the connecting line at such point, the said agent to sign, date and stamp the ticket, such ticket is not good for a return passage until these conditions shall have been complied with.- Mosher v. St. L. I. M. & S. R. Co., 127 U. S. 390, 8 Sup. Ct. R. (U. S.) 1324.

The use of the return coupons of nontransferable excursion tickets by persons other than the original purchaser is a fraud upon the common carrier.- Nashville, C. & St. L. R. Co., v. McConnell, 82 Fed. 65.

§ 34. False billing,* [classification, weighing, report of weights], etc., by carrier or shipper.- No common carrier or any officer or agent thereof or any person acting for or employed by it, shall assist, suffer or permit any person or corporation to obtain transportation for any passenger, freight or property between points within this state at less than the rates then established and in force in accordance with the schedules filed and published in accordance with the provisions of this act, by means of false billing, false classification, false weight or weighing, or false report of weight, or by any other device or No person, corporation or any officer, agent or employee of a corporation, who shall deliver freight or property for transportation within the state to a common carrier, shall seek to obtain or obtain such transportation for such property at less than the rates then established and in force therefor, as aforesaid, by false billing, false or incorrect classification, false weight or weighing, false representation of the contents of a package, or false report or statement of weight, or by any other device or means, whether with or without the consent or connivance of the common carrier, or any of its officers, agents or employees.

means.

For parallel provisions of Interstate Commerce Act,- see Interst. Com. Act, § 10, post, Appendix B.

Penalties and forfeitures for false billing, weighing, etc., by carrier, see post, § 56.

• Words in brackets are not a part of section heading as enacted.-Ed.

[graphic]

Forfeiture and penalties for false billing, weighing, report of weight, weights, etc., by other than common carriers,- see post, § 58. General power of the state to regulate property devoted to public use, see ante, § 1, notes [1]-[22].

Power of the state to regulate carriers' way of doing business,- see

ante, § 1, note [2].

General rules of statutory construction,- see ante, § 1, notes [23]-[40].

Purpose of acts regulating railroads,- see ante, § 1, note [32].
Who are common carriers,- see ante, § 2, notes [2]-[7].
What constitutes a railroad or street railroad,- see ante, § 2, note [3].
Effect of receivership on power to regulate,- see ante, § 2, note [15].

[1] Responsibility of carriers.

Carriers and their agents should be held strictly responsible for the shipment of goods only upon correct weights, classification and billing.In re Underbilling, 1 Inters. Com. R. 813, 1 I. C. C. R. 633.

[2] Underbilling as a form of discrimination.

Underbilling is an unjust discrimination. In re Underbilling, 1 Inters. Com. R. 813, 1 I. C. C. R. 633.

[3] Limitation of liability by under-classification.

Limitation of liability by under-classification, if made with the assent of the shipper to secure him a lower rate, is valid.- Douglass v. Minnesota Transfer R. Co., 62 Minn. 288, 64 N. W. 899, 30 L. R. A. 860.

[4] Effect of under-classification.

After a carrier has contracted to discriminate unlawfully by underclassification it cannot raise the classification and demand the additional charges.- Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Seitz, 214 Ill. 350, 73 N. E. 585.

[5] What is false description.

The words "falsely described" in the Interstate Commerce Act do not mean a mere incorrect description. The penalties of the law are not intended for those who, in good faith, incorrectly describe or bill goods.-Atchison, T. & S. F. R. Co. v. Goetz Mfg. Co., 51 Ill. App. 151.

[6] Determination of correctness of weights.

The correctness of weights for purposes of shipment is one of fact to be determined in a manner just to both parties and as to which the ex parte action of either cannot conclude the other.- Potter Mfg. Co. v. Ch. & G. T. R. Co., 4 Inters. Com. R. 223, 5 I. C. C. R. 514.

[7] What practices improper.

To put fire, building and paving bricks in different classes would promote false billing by shippers.- Stowe-Fuller Co. v. Pa. Co., 12 Inters. Com. R. 253.

Billing of cotton at a proper estimated weight per bale should not be deemed unlawful when actual weights cannot be ascertained without great inconvenience to the shipper or carrier, and when charges are promptly adjusted by the carrier upon the basis of actual weights furnished by the consignee.- Phelps v. Tex. & P. R. Co., 6 Inters. Com. R. 36.

Use of hypothetical standards of weights, out of proportion to the actual weights, is unlawful, if it enables tank shippers to get more oil carried for the same money than barrel shippers.- Rice v. Cincinnati, W. & B. R. Co., 3 Inters. Com. R. 841, 5 I. C. C. R. 193.

Hay is a generic term covering all kinds of hay, and the Interstate Commerce Act cannot be evaded by shipping some at a lower rate as "old hay."- Missouri, K. & T. R. Co. v. Bowles, 1 Ind. Ter. 250, 40 S. W. 899.

[8] Criminal liability.

False billing, classification, weighing, etc., a misdemeanor,-see post, $$ 56, 58.

Shippers of lumber may be convicted for false weighing, etc., upon a showing that their servants procured the unlawful discrimination in rates therein charged.— U. S. v. Howell, 56 Fed. 23.

For a jury to convict under an indictment which charges, under Interst. Com. Act, § 10, a conspiracy between certain lumber merchants and their employees, and an employee of a railroad company, to procure less than the established rates by false weighing of lumber shipped, such false weighing being done by the railroad employees the jury must find an agreement and combination for the purpose, and an overt act, the actual false weighing. Proof of separate overt acts will not show more than one offense, where the agreement and combination was continuous.U. S. v. Howell, 56 Fed. 23.

[9] Gist of offense.

The gist of the offense of false billing, under the Interstate Commerce Commission Act, is the fraudulent act by which the lower rate is obtained, and the offense is complete when and where such act has been committed, the property delivered for transportation, and the contract for the illegal rate secured.- Davis v. U. S., 104 Fed. 136.

[graphic]

[10] Indictment.

An indictment alleging the giving of rebates is not sufficient to charge a crime under the clause of Interst. Com. Act, § 2, which provides that no carrier shall, by false billing, false classification, false weighing or any other device or means permit any shipper to obtain transportation at less than the regular rates.-U. S. v. Hanley, 71 Fed. 672.

§ 35. Discrimination prohibited; connecting lines. -Every common carrier is required to afford all reasonable, proper and equal facilities for the interchange of passenger, freight and property traffic between the lines owned, operated, controlled or leased by it and the lines of every other common carrier, and for the prompt transfer of passengers and for the prompt receipt and forwarding of freight and property to and from its said lines; and no common carrier shall in any manner discriminate in respect to rates, fares or charges or in respect to any service or in respect to any charges or facilities for any such transfer in receiving or forwarding between any two or more other common carriers or between passengers, freight or property destined to points upon the lines of any two or more other common carriers or in any respect with reference to passengers, freight or property transferred or received from any two or more other common carriers. This section shall not be construed to require a common carrier to permit or allow any other common carrier to use its tracks or terminal facilities. Every common carrier, as such, is required to receive from every other common carrier, at a connecting point, freight cars of proper standard, and haul the same through to destination, if the destination be upon a line owned, operated or controlled by such common carrier, or if the destination be upon a line of some other common carrier, to haul any car so delivered through to the connecting point upon the line owned, operated, controlled or leased by it, by way of route over which such car is billed, and there to deliver the same to the next connecting carrier. Nothing in this section shall be construed as in anywise limiting or modifying the duty of a common carrier to establish joint rates, fares and charges for the transportation of passengers, freight and property over the lines owned, operated, controlled and leased by it and the lines of other common carriers, nor as in any manner limiting or modifying the power of the commission to require the establishment of

« AnteriorContinuar »