Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB
[graphic]

Where a railroad demands prepayment of freight and car mileage on property brought over the line of a connecting carrier from certain localities while it does not demand such prepayment on property brought by the connecting carrier from other localities, there is no unreasonable discrimination as to receiving and forwarding of freight in violation of Interst. Com. Act, § 3.- Oregon S. L. & U. N. R. Co. v. N. Pac. R. Co., 61 Fed. 158, affg. s. c. 51 Fed. 465.

[merged small][ocr errors][merged small]

Power of Commission as to embargos,- see post, § 49, note [15].

A carrier may, under special circumstances, to avoid congestion in its freight yards, enforce an embargo rule against certain classes of freight coming from other lines, although not issuing an embargo against such freight when it originates on its own line.- Daish v. Cleveland A. & C. R. Co., 9 Inters. Com. R. 513.

[8] Limit of common-law duty to transport.

At common law a carrier is not bound to undertake to transport goods beyond the terminal points reached by its own conveyances.— Atchison, T. & S. F. R. Co. v. D. & N. O. R. Co., 110 U. S. 667, 3 Sup. Ct. R. (U. S.) 667; Erie R. Co. v. Wilcox, 84 Ill. 239; People v. Ch. & A. R. Co., 55 Ill. 95; Pittsburg, C. & St. L. R. Co. v. Morton, 61 Ind. 539.

Where a carrier has, by building stockyards, or by contract with a stockyards company, made adequate provision for the performance of its duty as a common carrier, it is not required by the common law to make delivery of stock consigned to such city to connecting roads for delivery to other stockyards therein.- Central Stock Yards v. L. & N. R. Co., 118 Fed. 113, 63 L. R. A. 213; affd. 192 U. S. 568, 24 Sup. Ct. R. (U. S.) 339.

At common law, in the absence of a special contract, a carrier performs his whole duty by transporting goods to the end of its own route and delivering them to the next connecting carrier.- Babcock v. L. S. & M. S. R. Co., 49 N Y. 491, revg. s. c., 43 How. Pr. (N. Y.) 317; Root v. Gt. Western R. Co., 45 N. Y. 524, revg. s. c. 2 Lans. (N. Y.) 199.

The fact that a carrier has connections with other routes, extending beyond its own termini, which it does not operate, control, or own, does not, at common law, make it liable for a refusal to ship goods over those routes.- Pittsburg, C. & St. L. R. Co. v. Morton, 61 Ind. 539.

[9] Public control.

General power of the state to regulate property devoted to public use, -see ante, § 1, notes [1]-[22].

General power of the state to regulate .rates and charges,- see ante, § 1, note [2].

Exemptions from public control,- see ante, § 1, notes [16]-[21]. Effect of receivership on power to regulate,- see ante, § 2, note [15]. An order of the North Carolina Corporation Commission compelling a railroad to run its trains so as to make connections with trains of another road is an order coming clearly within the scope of the power to enforce just and reasonable regulations.-Atlantic C. L. R. Co. v. N. C. Corporation Commission, 206 U. S. 1, 27 Sup. Ct. R. (U. S.) 585, affg. s. c. 137 N. C. 1, 49 S. E. 191.

An Act of the Minnesota Legislature, creating a railroad and warehouse commission, is not unconstitutional in that it assumes to establish joint through rates on traffic over the lines of independent connecting roads, and to arbitrarily apportion and divide joint earnings.Minneapolis & St. L. R. Co. v. Minnesota, 186 U. S. 257, 22 Sup. Ct. R. (U. S.) 900, affg. s. c. 80 Minn. 191, 83 N. W. 60.

A state railroad commission has the power to pass upon the reasonableness of a contract between connecting carriers.- Minneapolis & St. L. R. Co. v. Minnesota, 186 U. S. 257, 22 Sup. Ct. R. (U. S.) 900, affg. s. c. 80 Minn 191, 83 N. W. 60.

A common carrier cannot be compelled to receive from, and transport for, a connecting line, a car defective in safety appliances.- Baltimore & P. R. Co. v. Mackey, 157 U. S. 72, 15 Sup. Ct. R. (U. S.) 491, affg. s. c. 19 D. C. 282; Wilson v. Atlantic C. L. R. Co., 129 Fed. 774; affd. 133 Fed. 890; Felton v. Bullard, 94 Fed. 781; Chicago, M. & St. P. R. Co. v. Wallace, 66 Fed. 506, 30 L. R. A. 161n; Oregon S. L. & U. N. R. Co. v. No. Pac. R. Co., 51 Fed. 465; affd. 61 Fed. 158; Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co. v. Curtis, 51 Neb. 442, 71 N. W. 42; Pennsylvania R. Co. v. Snyder, 55 Oh. St. 342, 45 N. E. 559.

In the absence of statutory provision, the interchange of traffic between two connecting railroads is a matter for contract between them, and the courts have no power to compel such exchange or to fix the terms on which it shall be made. No such power is conferred on the courts by the Interstate Commerce Act.- Northern Pac. R. Co. v. Washington Territory, 112 U. S. 492, 12 Sup. Ct. R. (U. S.) 283; Express Cases, 117 U. S. 1, 6 Sup. Ct. R. (U. S.) 542, 628; Pullman Palace Car Co. v. Mo. Pac. R. Co., 115 U. S. 587, 6 Sup. Ct. R. (U. S.) 194; Atchison, T. & S. F. R. Co. v. D. & N. O. R. Co., 110 U. S. 667, 4 Sup. Ct. R. (U. S.) 185, revg. s. c. 13 Fed. 546; Central Stockyards Co. v. L. & N. R. Co., 118 Fed. 113, 63 L. R. A. 213; affd. 192 U. S. 568, 24 Sup. Ct. R. (U. S.) 339; Allen v. Oregon R. & N. Co., 98 Fed. 16; St. Louis Drayage Co. v. L. & N. R. Co., 65 Fed. 39; Oregon S. L. & U. N. R. Co. v. No. Pac. R. Co., 51 Fed. 465; affd. 61 Fed. 158; Little Rock & M. R. Co. v. St. L. I. M. & S. R. Co., 41 Fed. 559; Kentucky &I. Bridge Co. v. L. & N. R. Co., 37 Fed. 657, 2 L. R. A. 289.

[graphic]

The court has no power, at common law or under the Interstate Commerce Act, to compel a railroad to make a contract with another company for a joint through rate and joint through routing of freight and passengers.- Express Cases, 117 U. S. 1, 6 Sup. Ct. R. (U. S.) 542, 628; Pullman Palace Car Co. v. Mo. Pac. R. Co., 115 U. S. 587, 6 Sup. Ct. R. (U. S.) 194; Atchison, T. & S. F. R. Co. v. D. & N. O. R. Co., 110 U. S. 667, 4 Sup. Ct. R. (U. S.) 185, revg. s. c. 13 Fed. 546; Little Rock & W. R. Co. v. St. L. I. M. & S. R. Co., 41 Fed. 559; Kentucky & I. Bridge Co. v. L. & N. R. Co., 37 Fed. 567, 2 L. R. A. 289.

No power exists at common law, and none is given by the Interstate Commerce Act, to compel connecting railroads to unite in a joint tariff, or to enter into a through rate arrangement for transportation, unless they desire to do so..-Interst. Com. Commission v. C. N. O. & T. P. R. Co., 56 Fed. 925; Chicago & N. W. R. Co. v. Osborne, 52 Fed. 925, revg. s. c. 48 Fed. 49; certiorari denied, 146 U. S. 354, 13 Sup. Ct. R. (U. S.) 281; Little Rock & M. R. Co. v. St. L. I. M. & S. R. Co., 41 Fed. 559; Kentucky & I. Bridge Co. v. L. & N. R. Co., 37 Fed. 630. If the public is to have the legitimate benefit of water competition, some regulating body must exercise in our country, as does the English Railway Commission in England, the authority to establish through routes between water and rail carriers, or at least to prevent undue discrimination by rail carriers between connecting water lines.- Matter of Alleged Unlawful Discriminations, 11 Inters. Com. R. 587.

The legislature has the power to compel the interchange of cars, and traffic between a steam railroad and a street electric railroad.Hudson Valley R. Co. v. Boston & M. R. Co., 106 App. Div. (N. Y.) 375, 94 N. Y. Supp. 545, affg. s. c. 45 Misc. (N. Y.) 520, 92 N. Y. Supp. 928. Neither under the statutes of Florida nor under the common law can a railroad be compelled to transport freight over the line of another railroad which it does not own, control or operate, when it does not hold itself out as transporting freight over such line.-State v. L. & N. R. Co., 51 Fla. 311, 40 So. 885.

Railroads cannot be compelled to acquire facilities to handle and deliver freight beyond their own lines.- People ex rel. Hempstead v. Ch. & A. R. Co., 55 Ill. 95.

The legislature may, when not forbidden by the organic law, regulate the business relations between connecting lines of railroads.- Shelbyville R. Co. v. Louisville C. & L. R. R. Co., 82 Ky. 541.

Not only has a constitutional convention the power to impose regulations upon all railroads within the state, requiring interchanges of cars and switching at points of physical connection, in receiving and deliv ering freight, and the use of their terminals for such purpose, but under the general police power of the state performance of such duties can be compelled by legislative enactment alone.- Louisville & N. R. Co. v. Central Stockyards Co., 30 Ky. L. R. 18, 97 S. W. 778.

[ocr errors]

Even though a carrier furnishes its own stockyards, where a connecting line furnishes ample facilities for loading and unloading, and yards are erected on the line of the latter, so that the former may deliver stock with equal safety at said yards, delivery at the yards on such connecting line may be compelled.- Louisville & N. R. Co. v. Central Stockyards Co., 30 Ky. L. R. 18, 97 S. W. 778.

Under the laws of Minnesota, the Railroad and Warehouse Commission of that state has the power to compel the enforcement of joint through rates by connecting carriers between points within the state.— State v. Minneapolis & St. L. R. Co., 80 Minn. 191, 83 N. W. 60.

Under a statute of North Carolina providing that the Corporation Commission should have such general control over carriers as was necessary to carry into effect the provisions of the act and further providing that all carriers should afford all reasonable, proper and equal facilities for interchange of traffic with connecting carriers and for the forwarding and delivering of passengers and freight to and from their lines and those connecting therewith, and that connecting lines should make as close connection as practicable for the convenience of the traveling public, the Commission may compel a railroad to make its trains connect with those of another railroad, even though by so doing the railroad is subjected to a greater expense, since the statute does not refer to mere physical connections.- North Carolina Corp. Commission v. Atlantic C. L. R. Co., 137 N. C. 1, 49 S. E. 191; affd. 206 U. S. 1, 27 Sup. Ct. R. (U. S.) 585.

[10] State or federal regulation.

Receiving interstate shipments from connecting carrier makes a railroad wholly within a state engaged in interstate commerce,— see ante, § 25, note [7].

Statute compelling connecting carrier to trace freight shipped over its line not a regulation of interstate commerce,- see ante, § 25, note [16].

Whether compelling the transfer of cars by connecting carriers is a regulation of interstate commerce,- see ante § 25, note [16].

The General Laws of Minnesota, ch. 91, § 3, required all common carriers to provide, at points where their tracks intersect at grade, ample and equal facilities for transferring cars, freight, passengers, etc. A court order compelling erection of tracks, etc. in compliance with this. order was upheld. Although it provides facilities for interstate commerce, it is not a regulation of interstate commerce, within federal control.- Wisconsin, M. & P. R. Co. v. Jacobson, 179 U. S. 287, 21 Sup. Ct. R. (U. S.) 115.

A state is without power to compel a railroad company to transfer cars of livestock to a connecting road at a point of intersection within the state, where the shipment was received in another state and is, there

[graphic]

fore, interstate commerce.- Central Stockyards Co. v. L. & N. R. Co., 118 Fed. 113, 63 L. R. A. 213; affd. 192 U. S. 568, 24 Sup. Ct. R. (U. S.) 339.

If the installing of a connecting switch to facilitate the transfer of cars from one road to another at an intersection point, would be of advantage to both state and interstate traffic, either the state or federal commission may order such switch.-Jacobson v. Wisconsin, M. & P. R. Co., 71 Minn. 514, 74 N. W. 893.

[11] What carriers charged with duty.

An Indiana statute providing for connections between railroads and the granting of facilities to the connecting carriers, does not apply to express companies which do not own, control or operate a railroad line.Southern Ind. Exp. Co. v. U. S. Exp. Co., 88 Fed. 659; affd. 92 Fed. 1022.

The lines of defendant railway were the means of connection and transfer of cars, etc., between two other lines.- Held, that the failure or refusal of defendant to switch and transfer cars between such lines does not make it liable under a statute requiring railways to receive and transport freight coming to and from connecting lines.- Gulf & I. R. Co. v. Texas & N. O. R. Co., 93 Tex. 482, 56 S. W. 328, affg. s. c. 54 S. W. 1031.

[12] Making of through routes.

66

Power of carriers to establish through routes,- see ante, § 30, note [1]. "Through routes" and through rates" defined,- see ante, § 30, note [2].

Long and short haul section applies to through routes,- see post, § 36, note [2].

Power of Commission to order through routes and through rates,- see post, § 49, note [24].

At common law a carrier may confine its business entirely to its own lines and need not make its line part of any through route to or from a point of its line unless it so chooses.- In the Matter of Through Routes and Through Rates, 12 Inters. Com. R. 190.

That cars passing off its own lines might come into the possession of carriers who would not promptly return them, may justify refusal to establish joint rates and through routes.- American Nat. Live Stock Assn. v. Tex. & P. R. Co., 12 Inters. Com. R. 37.

[13] Through traffic a matter of contract.

When agreement for through transportation exists,- see ante, § 30, note [3].

When through route and through rates exist,- see ante, § 30, note [4]. What constitutes a through shipment,- see ante, § 31, note [72].

« AnteriorContinuar »