FORM OF. See Petition; Parties; Amendment; Rules of Practice. INVESTIGATION WHEN NO PERSONAL GRIEVANCE PROVED. Smith v. Northern Pacific Railroad Company. WHEN NOT ADJUDICATED.-When after trial, but before decision, the defendant concedes the relief sought and reduces its tariff to the rates claimed by the petitioner, no order is required to be made by the Commission. Manufacturers' and Jobbers' Union of Mankato v. Minneapolis and St. Louis Railroad Company et al. WHEN NOT ENTERTAINED BY COMMISSION.-No reasonable ground appearing. La Crosse Manufacturer's and Jobbers' Union v. Chicago, Mil waukee, and St. Paul Railway Company. Ottinger v. Southern Pacific Company. AMENDMENTS OF.-The Commission is liberal in allowing an amendment to complaints, but will not allow one that would be in effect making a new case. Delaware State Grange, etc. v. New York, Philadelphia, and Amendment is not necessary to bring in matters that would have been the subject of proof under the complaint as originally filed. (Ib.) WHEN NOT FAVORED.-A complaint made for the purpose of retaliation for a fancied wrong, as to get even with a carrier for revocation of complainant's pass, does not commend itself to the Commission. INFORMAL. Slater v. Northern Pacific Railroad Company. Second Annual Report of Interstate Commerce Commission. McMillan & Co. v. Western Classification Committee. PARTIES.-Where a complaint is made against the reasonableness of through rates agreed upon by several connecting lines, it is necessary to make all of such connecting lines parties defendant. Michigan Congress Water Company v. Chicago and Grand Trunk WHEN INSUFFICIENT.—When a complaint charged that the respondent railroad companies, which were common carriers, subject to the act to regulate commerce, were accustomed to make deductions of from 5 to 10 pounds of wheat per load from the true weight when delivered by the farmer to the buyer at the elevators of the respondents, and gave receipt to the farmer for the amount as thus diminished, upon which the latter was paid by the buyer, thereby suffering a loss to the extent of such reduction, but failed to charge that the wheat was delivered for interstate transportation, or, indeed, for transportation anywhere, it was held that the complaint was insufficient in substance to show violation of the act to regulate commerce, and that the respondents were entitled to have it dismissed on their motions to that effect, but that the dismissal should be without prejudice. White v. The Michigan Central Railroad Company and the Lake WHEN SUFFICIENT.-Where complaint alleges that a greater charge, in the aggregate, for the transportation of a like kind of property, is made for a shorter than for a longer distance, over the same line in the same direction, the shorter being included in the longer, and that an unlawful preference is thereby given one locality over another, Held, Complaint is WHEN SUFFICIENT.-Continued. sufficient to put the carriers on proof that the services were rendered under such dissimilar circumstances as to justify the greater charge. The San Bernardino Board of Trade v. The Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fé Railroad Company et al. WHEN SUFFICIENT UNDER FOURTH SECTION. San Bernardino Board of Trade v. Atchinson, Topeka, and Santa King & Company v. New York, New Haven and Hartford R-"- DUTY OF COMMISSION TO INVESTIGATE— In re Alleged Excessive Freight Rates and Charges on Food AMENDMENT, AFTER FILING OF DEMURRER.— Capehart et al. v. Louisville and Nashville Railroad Company et al. FORMAL. (lb.) JURISDICTION.—Motion to dismiss in toto for want of jurisdiction on the ground that jurisdiction was precluded by contracts entered into prior to the act denied, good ground of complaint being set forth in respect to northern and western shipments of coal from complainant's mines. Haddock v. Delaware, Lackawanna and Western Railroad Company. DISMISSAL AFTER CONCESSION OF RELIEF. New York Board of Trade and Transportation et al. v. Pennsylvania Railroad Company et al. See Interstate Commerce Commission; Parties: Practice; COMPLAINANT. NEED NOT BE DIRECTLY DAMAGED. In re Acts and Doings of Grand Trunk Railway Company of WHEN PRECLUDED BY CONTRACT. Haddock v. Delaware, Lackawanna and Western Railroad Company. MERCANTILE SOCIETY; SPECIAL DAMAGE NEED NOT BE SHOWN.-The Boston Fruit and Produce Exchange is a mercantile society, such as is described in the thirteenth section of the act, and as such has the right to maintain a proceeding like the present, without showing special damage to itself. Boston Fruit and Produce Exchange v. New York and New England Railroad Company et al. STATE RAILROAD COMMISSIONS AS. Railroad Commission of Florida v. Savannah, Florida and Western Railway Company et al. See Practice. CONCESSION OF RELIEF. TERMINATES THE CONTROVERSY.— Manufacturers' and Jobbers' Union of Mankato v. Minneapolis and St. Louis Railroad Company et al. Second Annual Report of Interstate Commerce Commission. TERMINATES THE CONTROVERSY.-Continued. Bishop v. Duval, receiver, etc. PARTIAL. Harris v. Duval, receiver, etc., et al. Lincoln Board of Trade v. Union Pacific Railway Company. Rawson v. Newport News and Mississippi Valley Company. Bates v. Pennsylvania Railroad Company et al. WHEN REPARATION IS MADE NO ORDER WILL BE ISSUED.— CONDITIONS. See Circumstances and Conditions. CONGRESS. POWER TO REGULATE INTERSTATE COMMERCE ABSOLUTE.— Kauffman Milling Company v. Missouri Pacific Railway Company et al. CONNECTING LINES. WATER AND RAIL. Capehart et al. v. Louisville and Nashville Railroad Company New York and Northern Railway Company v. New York and TRANSPORTATION OF INTERSTATE TRAFFIC BY INITIAL CARRIER BETWEEN Boston Fruit and Produce Exchange v. New York and New TRANSPORTATION OF INTERSTATE TRAFFIC BY TERMINAL CARRIER BETWEEN James and Mayer Buggy Company v. Cincinnati, New Orleans and Texas Pacific Railway Company et al. ONE LINE WHOLLY WITHIN A STATE. New York and Northern Railway Company v. New York and THROUGH CARRIAGE OVER. King & Co. v. New York, New Haven and Hartford Railroad Coxe Brothers & Co. v. Lehigh Valley Railroad Company et al. See Long and Short Haul Clause; Through Routes and Through CONSOLIDATION OF ROADS. COMPETING LINES. Rice, Robinson & Witherop v. Western New York and Pennsylvania Railroad Company. SUBJECT DISCUSSED. Report of Interstate Commerce Commission. CONTINUOUS CARRIAGE OF FREIGHTS. Chicago, Rock Island and Pacific Railway Company v. Chicago and Alton Railroad Company. Mattingly v. Pennsylvania Company. INTERRUPTIONS.-Continuous carriage of freights can not be prevented from being treated as one continuous carriage from the place of shipment to the place of destination by any means or devices intended to evade any of the provisions of the act. In re Acts and Doings of Grand Trunk Railway Company of Canada. CAN NOT BE AVOIDED BY EVASION OF THE LAW.-The carriage of freights can not be prevented from being treated as one continuous carriage from the place of shipment to the place of destination by any means or devices intended to evade any of the provisions of the act. In re Acts and Doings of Grand Trunk Railway Company of Can- Boston Fruit and Produce Exchange v. New York and New See Seventh Section. CONTRACTS. TRACKAGE RIGHTS.-In the absence of statutory provision the rights of a railroad company under a lawful agreement for a specified use of the tracks of another railroad company are measured in respect to the track use by the terms of the contract, and the provisions of the act to regulate commerce applied to the situation created by the contract and had no authority for a different use of the tracks. Alford v. Chicago, Rock Island and Pacific Railway Company. CARS.-A railroad company may acquire cars by construction, by purchase, or by contract for their use, and no one has the power to compel a railroad company to select among these several modes or to contract with all comers. Worcester Excursion Car Company v. Pennsylvania Railroad See Agreements; Facilities of Traffic; Preference and Advantage; Through Routes and Through Rates; Unjust Discrimination. COMPULSORY PRODUCTION OF. In re Alleged Excessive Freight Rates and Charges on Food Haddock v. Delaware, Lackawanna and Western Railroad Com- ENTERED INTO PRIOR TO THE ACT.-No claim is made that the validity of the contract has been impaired or affected by the passage of the Act to Regulate Commerce, although the Commission distinctly propounded the inquiry whether such claim was made. And the Commission carefully ENTERED INTO PRIOR TO THE ACT.-Continued. abstains from expressing any opinion as to the effect of the Act to Regulate Commerce in impairing the validity of the contracts referred to. Haddock v. Delaware, Lackawanna and Western Railroad Company. FOR USE OF IMPROVED STOCK CARS OWNED BY SHIPPERS. Shamberg v. Delaware, Lackawanna and Western Railroad Company et al. CONSIDERATION OF AS EVIDENCE AFTER FILING.— Boston Fruit and Produce Exchange v. New York and New England Railroad Company et al. New York and Northern Railway Company v. New York and See Evidence; Practice; Through Routes and Through Lines. Bates v. Pennsylvania Railroad Company et al. COST OF CARRIAGE. IS AN IMPORTANT FACT IN TRANSPORTATION CHARGES.- Boston Chamber of Commerce v. Lake Shore and Michigan Evans v. Oregon Railway and Navigation Company. McMorran et al. v. Grand Trunk Railway Company of Canada et Thurber et al. v. New York Central and Hudson River Railroad Leggett v. Same. Greene v. Same. Lehmann, Higginson & Co. v. Southern Pacific Company et al. Manufacturers' and Jobbers' Union of Mankato v. Minneapolis Board of Trade of the City of Chicago v. Chicago and Alton Bates v. Pennsylvania Railroad Company et al. New York Board of Trade and Transportation et al. v. Pennsyl- W. S. King & Co. v. The New York, New Haven and Hartford OF LONG-HAUL TRAFFIC NOT TO BE IMPOSED ON LOCAL TRAFFIC. (Ib.) ELEMENTS ENTERING INTO. First Annual Report of Interstate Commerce Commission. DIFFERENCE BETWEEN, ON THROUGH AND LOCAL TRAFFIC. Business Men's Association of the State of Minnesota v. Chicago and North-Western Railway Company. MILK TRANSPORTATION.—The elements of extra expense are substantially the same upon milk transported from every part of the line of road over which the special milk trains run. Howell et al. v. New York, Lake Erie and Western Railroad |