[27] Division of joint rates.

The necessities of carriers often demand, and traffic conditions frequently warrant them in exacting, a share of through rates which gives them more per mile than that which results to a connecting carrier from the division accepted by it.- Gustin v. A. T. & S. F. R. Co., 8 Inters. Com. R. 277.

[28] Amount of charges.

Two lines which are in fact one railroad may not charge for a through haul over their roads as if each were a separate line.- Missouri Pac. R. Co. v. Kuthman, 2 Tex. Ct. of App. Civ. Cases, § 465.

[29] Right to recover damages.

Connecting carrier discriminated against may sue at law and recover damages.- Bigbee Packet Co. v. Mobile & O. R. Co., 60 Fed. 545.

Where two carriers at the same point of connection with a third are charged different rates by the latter for forwarding their freight, the one discriminated against may recover damages.- Samuels v. L. & N. R. Co., 31 Fed. 57.

[30] Injunctions against discriminations.

Where a labor boycott has been declared against a railroad, and connecting carriers are refusing, or seemingly about to refuse, to afford equal facilities to the boycotted road, in violation of Interst. Com. Act, $ 3, they may be compelled by injunction to afford equal facilities.Toledo, A. A. & N. M. R. Co. v. Pa. Co., 54 Fed. 746, 19 L. R. A. 395.

The courts will enforce by mandatory injunction the receiving of freights and passengers from connecting lines, as required by Interstate Commerce Act and laws of Iowa. A strike on the plaintiff's road and the fact that such receiving would cause a strike on the defendant's road in no defense.- Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co. v. Burl. C. R. & N. R. Co., 34 Fed. 481.

The L. & N. R. Co. refused to transfer shipments of live stock to the line of the Southern R. Co. at their points of physical connection, and when stock was so billed it delivered the same at a stockyard on its own line.- Held, that an owner of a stockyard on the line of the Southern R. Co., whose business was injured by this practice, could maintain an action to enjoin such discrimination.- Louisville & N. R. Co. v. Central Stockyards Co., 30 Ky. L. R. 18, 97 S. W. 778.

[31] Liability of carrier as to through transportation of passen

gers.

If a carrier sells tickets over a connecting line, assuming to secure accommodations thereon, it is liable for the failure of such connecting

line to furnish proper accommodations, notwithstanding that by notice printed on its tickets it claims to act only as agent and not to be liable beyond its own line.- Bussman v. Western Transit Co., 9 Misc. (N. Y.) 410, 29 N. Y. Supp. 1066.

A street railway company was a lessee of running rights over the tracks of a traction company, under the agreement paying the latter two and a half cents for every passenger it carried over the latter's lines.- Held, that this did not create a joint obligation of both companies for the safe carriage of the street railway company's passengers, the division of fares being only a method of estimating the rental to be paid by the lessee, the traction company remaining in the sole ownership and control of the road.- Beckman v. Meadville & C. S. St. R. Co., Pa., 67 Atl. 983.

[32] Actions for penalties.

Penalties and forfeitures for failure to furnish facilities for interchange of traffic between connecting lines,- see post, § 56.

Refusal to accept goods from a connecting carrier may be an unjust discrimination, making the road so refusing liable to penalties.— Houston & T. C. R. Co. v. Lone Star Salt Co., 19 Tex. Civ. App. 676, 48 S. W. 619.

The failure of connecting carriers to have the state commission prescribe the division of rates, etc., between them, is no defense in a suit by a shipper.- Houston & T. C. R. Co. v. Lone Star Salt Co., 19 Tex. Civ. App. 676, 48 S. W. 619.

[33] Effect of traffic agreement on necessity for consents of abutting owners.

A traffic agreement was entered into between three street railroad companies by virtue of which one was permitted to operate over the tracks of the other two and the curve connecting such tracks.— Held, that the consents of property owners and local authorities need not be obtained before the said company could so operate. Kunz v. Brooklyn Heights R. Co., 25 Misc. (N. Y.) 334, 54 N. Y. Supp. 187.

[34] Control over crossings and intersections.

L. 1890, ch. 565, § 35, confers on the Board of Railroad Commissioners a limited power to determine the terms on which one railroad shall cross and intersect with another.- New York, L. & W. R. Co. v. Erie R. Co., 31 App. Div. (N: Y.). 378, 52 N. Y. Supp. 318.

[35] What constitutes a union or intersection.

A connection between a street surface railway and an elevated railroad by an inclined plane is not a joining or union within the meaning

of N. Y. R. R. L., § 4.- Eldert v. L. I. Elect. Co., 28 App. Div. 451, 51 N. Y. Supp. 186; affd. without opinion, 165 N. Y. N. E. 1122.

(N. Y.) 651, 59

If two railroads cross each other, they intersect, even though not at grade, and are subject to the same regulation as though they crossed at grade.-International & G. N. R. Co. v. R. R. Commission, 14 Tex. Ct. R. 42, 89 S. W. 961.

A Texas act provided that every railroad shall furnish sufficient accommodations for the transportation of all such property as shall be offered for transportation at the place of starting and at junctions with other roads, failure to do which shall subject it to the regulations of the Railroad Commission.-Held, this conferred on the Commission authority to compel two roads crossing not at grade to connect their tracks.- International & G. N. R. Co. v. R. R. Commission, 14 Tex. Ct. R. 42, 89 S. W. 961.

[36] Whether actual crossing necessary.

N. Y. R. R. L., § 4, subd. 5, giving any railroad the right to "cross, intersect, join or unite its railroad" with any other railroad before constructed, at any point on its route, is not limited to those roads whose lines as laid out shall actually cross the other roads, but if the two lines come so near together that it becomes desirable that one shall join or make connections with the other, authority is given to do so.- Jennings v. D. L. & W. R. Co., 103 App. Div. (N. Y.) 164, 93 N. Y. Supp. 374.

The provisions of statute as to intersecting and connecting roads are not exclusively applicable to cases where the routes of two independent roads, as mapped and laid out, cross and intersect each other, but they were designed to embrace cases where the public interests require an interchange of freight and passengers between roads whose lines are continuous, or so near each other in villages and cities that the public interests require that the roads should grant facilities for the interchange of cars, freight and passengers-New York, L. & W. R. Co. v. Erie R. Co., 31 App. Div. (N. Y.) 378, 52 N. Y. Supp. 318.

[37] Who must show need of connections at points of intersection.

On an appeal from an order of a state commission to build a connecting switch at a point of intersection, the burden is on the railroad to show that such a connection is not needed.-Jacobson v. Wisconsin, M. & P. R. Co., 71 Minn. 514, 74 N. W. 893.

[38] Intersections of steam and electric railroads.

N. Y. R. R. L., § 12, requiring railroads to form connections at points where their lines are intersected by any new railroad, applies to

intersections of steam railroads by electric street railroads.- Matter of Stillwater & M. St. R. Co., 171 N. Y. 589, 64 N. E. 511, 59 L. R. A. 479, revg. s. c. 72 App Div. (N. Y.) 294, 76 N. Y. Supp. 68; Buffalo, B. & L. R. Co. v. N. Y. L. E. & W. R. Co., 72 Hun (N. Y.), 583, 25 N. Y. Supp. 265.

An electric railway intersecting with a steam railway may compel the latter to receive and deliver cars and freight and the differences in the cars, rate of speed, etc., on the former does not justify the latter in refusing.- Hudson Valley R. Co. v. Boston & M. R. Co., 45 Misc. (N. Y.) 520, 92 N. Y. Supp. 928; affd. 106 App. Div. (N. Y.) 375, 94 N. Y. Supp. 545.

The N. Y. Board of Railroad Commissioners has power to determine what proportion of the expense of a proposed crossing of a railroad and street railroad shall be borne by the street railroad.- Delaware, L. & W. R. Co. v. Syracuse, L. & B. R. Co., 28 Misc. (N. Y.) 456, 59 N. Y. Supp. 1035; affd. 43 App. Div. (N. Y.) 621, 60 N. Y. Supp. 386.

N. Y. R. R. L., § 12, relating to the crossing of one railroad by another, is applicable to the intersection of an electric trolley line and a steam railroad.— Port Richmond R. Co. v. Staten I. R. Co., 71 Hun (N. Y.), 179, 24 N. Y. Supp. 566; affd. 144 N. Y. 445, 39 N. E. 392.

Where, in a case arising under N. Y. R. R. L., § 68, an electric railway company operating on a highway, makes application to the N. Y. Public Service Commission for authority to cross the tracks of a steam railroad at grade, and it appears that the traffic on the highway and on the two lines in question is sufficient to make the proposed crossing dangerous and that the danger is likely to increase in the future, the Commission should refuse to permit such a crossing until the petitioning company can show conclusively that full consideration has been given to other methods of crossing, and can show that no other practicable method exists.- Petition of the International R. Co. Decided by the N. Y. Public Service Commission of the Second District, Dec. 20, 1907.

§ 36. Long and short haul; *[power of commission to authorize less charge for longer than for shorter distance]. No common carrier, subject to the provisions of this act, shall charge or receive any greater compensation in the aggregate for the transportation of passengers or of a like kind of property, under substantially similar circumstances and conditions, for a shorter than for a longer distance over the same line in the same direction, the shorter being included within the longer

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

distance; but this shall not be construed as authorizing any such common carrier to charge and receive as great a compensation for a shorter as for a longer distance or haul. Upon application of a common carrier the commission may by order authorize it to charge less for longer than for shorter distances for the transportation of passengers or property in special cases after investigation by the commission, but the order must specify and prescribe the extent to which the common carrier making such application is relieved from the operation of this section, and only to the extent so specified and prescribed shall any common carrier be relieved from the operation and requirements of this section.

For practically identical provisions of Interstate Commerce Act,— see Interest. Com. Act, § 4, post, Appendix B.

Rates shall be reasonable in themselves,- see ante, § 26.
Discriminations in rates, in general,- see ante, § 31.
Undue preferences, in general,- see ante, § 32.

Power of the Commission to correct rates which violate the long and short haul rule,- see post, § 49.

Penalties and forfeitures for making a lesser charge for longer than for shorter distances,- see post, § 56.

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

Exemptions from public control,- see ante, § 1, notes [16]-[21]. General rules of statutory construction,- see ante, § 1, notes [23][40].

Purpose of regulative acts,- 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

[8].

Effect of receivership on power to regulate,- see ante, § 2, note [15]. Power of Commission to determine as to rates,- see post, § 49, notes [6]-[12].

[1] Purpose of long and short haul section.

The long and short haul section of the Interstate Commerce Act was intended to break up the basing-point, or distributing-point, system of rate-making.- Raworth v. No. Pac. R. Co., 2 Interst. Com. R. 614, 3 Interst. Com. R. 857, 5 I. C. C. R. 234.

Natural commercial advantages resulting from location were intended to be maintained and promoted, not destroyed or neutralized, by the long and short haul rule of the Interstate Commerce Act.Raworth v. No. Pac. R. Co., 2 Interst. Com. R. 614, 3 Interst. Com. R. 857, 5 I. C. C. R. 234.