Obrázky stránek
PDF
ePub

reduced rates to ministers of religion (or to municipal governments for the transportation of indigent persons, or to the ismates of the National Homes or State Homes for Disabled Volunteer Soldiers, and of Soldiers' and Sailors' Orphan Homes, including those about to enter and those returning home after discharge, under arrangements with the boards of manangers of said homes); nothing in this act shall be construed to prevent railroads from giving free carriage to their own officers and employees, or to prevent the principal officers of any railroad company or companies from exchanging passes or tickets with other railroad companies for their officers and employees.

Part of section twenty-two as amended by Act March 2, 1889.

The original Act used the words "apply to" in the first line where the amended Act uses the word "prevent.” The words in brackets in the above copied section were added by Act of March 2, 1889.

Individuals desiring to make proposals to sell the government Indian supplies may receive special rates. Re Indilan Supplies, 1 I. C. C. 22. Pass issued to induce the holder to throw business to carrier illegal. Slater v. N. Pac. R. Co., 2 I. C. C. 359, 2 I. C. R. 243. Men eminent for public service not on that account alone entitled to use passes. Re Carriage of Persons Free or at Reduced Rates, 5 I. C. C. 69, 3 I. C. R. 717. Illegal to grant pass to members of city council. Harvey v. L. & N. R. Co., 5 I. C. C. 153, 3 I. C. R. 793. Land and immigration agents not entitled to free pass. Re Complaint of Illinois Central R. Co., 12 I. C. C. 7. Rule announced as to employees of telegraph companies. Re Rail. road Telegraph Contracts, 12 I. C. C. 10. Caretakers of newspapers not excepted by section. Re Free Transportation of Newspaper Employees, 12 I. C. C. 15. Nor are employees of baggage express companies. Re Right of Railroad Companies to Exchange Transportation with Transfer Companies 12 I. C. C. 39. Section cited. Export Shipping Co. v. Wabash R. Co., 14 I. C. C. 437, 455. Exception does not apply to families of officers or employees. Ex parte Kæhler, 31 Fed. 315, 12 Sawy. 446. Section as originally enacted by making certain exceptions was not intended to prohibit party rate tickets. Int. Com. Com. v. B. & 0. R. Co., 43 Fed. 37, 45, 3 I. C. C. 192. Affirmed, with same holding, 145 U. S. 263, 36 L. Ed. 699, 12 Sup. Ct. 844. To issue pass to person not excepted by section is illegal discrimination. Re Charge to Grand Jury, 66 Fed. 146. Exceptions do not apply to officers of express companies. United States v. Wells Fargo Express Co., 161 Fed. 606, 609. Affirmed. American Ex, Co. and other Express Co.'s v. United States, 212 U. S. 522, 53 L. Ed. 635, 29 Sup. Ct. 315. Publishers can not pay for transportation by advertising. United States v. Chicago, I. & L. Ry. Co., 163 Fed. 114, 219 U. S. 486, 55 L. Ed. 305, 31 Sup. Ct. 272. Does not probibit free transportation of employees of the Federal government engaged in the postal service. 18 Opin. Atty-Gen. 587.

Notes of Decisions Rendered Since 1909.

See notes Section 342, supra,

Carriers may give reduced rates to municipal authorities, but what they may do is a very different thing from what they may be required to do. Metropolitan Paving Brick Co. v. A. & R. R. Co., 17 I. C. C. 197, 204; Field v. S. R. Co., 13 I. C. C. 298; Carnegie Board of Trade v. P. R. Co., 28 I. C. C., 122, 129: Dairyman's Supply Co. v. P. R. Co., 28 I. C. C. 406, 408. Excursion tickets not to be issued as to abuse the privilege. Weber Club Intermountain Fair Ass'n v. 0. S. L. R. Co., 17 I. C. C. 212. Mileage books voluntarily issued are subject to the general provisions of the statute. Commutation Rate case, 21 I. C. C. 428, 442, citing cases. Free pass situation discussed. Colorado Free Pass Investigation, 26 I. C. C. 491. A carrier subject to the Act may exchange transportation with other common carriers not subject to the Act. U. S. v. Erie R. Co., 213 Fed. 391. "Mileage books' discussed and cases cited. Re Mileage Books, 28 I. C. C. 318; Re Mileage, Excursion and Commutation Tickets, 23 I. C. C. 95. The Supreme Court of Georgia held that carriers having issued mileage books, such books could be regulated by the Railroad Commission of the state, and that then Commission could require the carrier to accept the mileage

on trains without demanding an exchange for a ticket. Railroad Commission of Ga. v. L. & N. R. Co., 140 Ga. 817, 80 S. E. 327, cited in Wadley So. v. Georgia, 235 U. S. 651, 59 L. Ed. 405, 35 Sup. Ct. 214. See contra, Lake S. & M. S. Ry. Co. v. Smith, 173 U. S. 684, 43 L. Ed. 858, 19 Sup. Ct. 565; State v. Boneval, 128 La. 702, 55 So. 569, Ann Cases 1912 C. 837; Virginia Commonwealth ex rel. v. A. C. L, 106 Va. 61, 55 S. E. 572, 7 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1086, 117 Am. St. Rep. 983, and North Dakota-State v. Great N. Ry. Co., 17 N. D. 370, 116 N. W. 89, St. Louis, Mo. Illinois Passenger Fares, 41 I. C. C. 584, 600,

§ 443. Existing Remedies Not Abriged or Altered. Pending Litigation Not Affected. And nothing in this act contained shall in any way abridge or alter the remedies now existing at common law or by statute, but the provisions of this act are in addition to such remedies: Provided, That no pending litigation shall in any way be affected by this act.

Part of section twenty-two as originally enacted.

Right of courts to enjoin an illegal advance in rates before they become effective not supplanted by special remedies granted by the Act to Regulate Commerce. Tift v. So. Ry. Co., 123 Fed. 789, 138 Fed. 753. Affirmed. So. Ry. Co., v. Tift, 148 Fed. 1021, 206 U. S. 428, 51 L. Ed. 1124, 27 Sup. Ct. 709; Jewett Bros. v. Chicago, M. & St. P. R. Co., 156 Fed. 160; Kalispell Lumber Co. v. Great N. R. Co., 157 Fed. 845. Reversed because rate had become effective before injunction applied for. 165 Fed. 25, 91 C. C. A. 63. Kiser v. Cent. of Ga. Ry. Co., 158 Fed. 193; Macon Grocery Co. V. Atlantic C. L. R. Co., 163 Fed. 736. Reversed. Altantic C. L. R. Co. v. Macon Grocery Co., 166 Fed. 206, 92 C. C. A. 114. Nor. Pac. Ry. Co. v. Pacific Coast Lumber Mfg. Asso., 165 Fed. 1. Union Pac. R. Co. v. Oregon & W. L. Mfg. Asso., 165 Fed. 13, 91 C. C. A. 51. Contra if the rates have become effective. Potlatch Lumber Co. v. Spokane Falls & N. Ry. Co., 157 Fed. 588; Great N. Ry. Co. v. Kalispell Lumber Co., 165 Fed. 25, 91 C. C. A. 63. Circuit courts can not enjoin the taking effect of an illegal advance prior to action by the Interstate Commerce Commission. Atlantic Coast L. R. Co. v. Macon Grocery Co., 166 Fed. 206. While a court has jurisdiction to enjoin an illegal advance before

[ocr errors]

it becomes effective, it can not do so merely as ancillary to a complaint before the Commission. Jewett Bros. v. Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry. Co., 156 Fed. 160. The cases holding that injunctions may be granted, supra, also hold that jurisdiction in the Federal Courts being exclusive, suit may be brought wherever the defendant can be found and served. In Sunderland Bros. v. Chicago, R. I. & P. R. Co., 158 Fed. 877, it was held that suit could only be brought in the district of the residence of either the complainant or the defendant. Notwithstanding this section, courts have no jurisdiction to award damages for excessive rates prior to a determination by the Commission that such rates are excessive. Tex. & Pac. Ry. Co. v. Abilene Cotton Oil Co., 204 U. S. 426, 446, 51 L. Ed. 553, 561, 27 Sup.' Ct. 350. But this decision does not mean that an illegal advance may not be enjoined. So. Ry. Co. v. Tift, 206 U. S. 428, 51 L. Ed. 112, 27 Sup. Ct. 709. Same effect as Abilene case, supra.

Gatton v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 95 Iowa, 113.

This Section must be construed with the whole Act, which Act so construed gives the Commission jurisdiction to determine the questions of the lawfulness and unlawfulness of rates. Mitchell Coal & Coke Co. v. P. R. Co., 230 U. S. 247, 57 L. Ed. 1472, 33 Sup. Ct. 916; same styled case below, 181 Fed. 403, 183 Fed. 908; Morrisdale Coal Co. v. P. R. Co., 230 U. S. 304, 57 L. Ed. 1474, 33 Sup. Ct. 939, affirming same styled case, 183 Fed. 929, 106 C. C. A. 269. But where an act is required by law and the Commission has no duty to perform the courts have jurisdiction. Penn R. Co., v. International Coal Co., 230 U. S. 184, 57 L. Ed. 1446, 33 Sup. Ct. 983; So. Ex. Co. v. Long, 202 Fed. 462, 120 C. C. A. 568; reversing Long v. So. Ex. Co., 201 Fed. 441. The courts may not in the first instance determine whether a rate is inherently reasonable. A. T. & S. F. Ry. Co. v. U. S., 203 Fed. 56. Op. Com. Ct. No. 61, p. 537; Atl. Coast Line R. Co. v. Int. Com. Com., 194 Fed. 449; L. & N. Ry. Co. v. Int. Com. Com., 195 Fed. 541; Int. Com. Com. & U. S. v. L. & N. Ry. Co., 227 U. S. 88, 33 Sup. Ct. 185, 57 L. Ed. 431; Robisson v. B. & 0. R. Co., 222 U. S. 506, 56 L. Ed. 288, 32 Sup. Ct. 114. 444. Interchangeable Mileage Tickets, How Issued.Privided further that nothing in this act shall prevent the issuance of joint interchangeable five-thousand-mile tickets, with special privileges as to the amount of free baggage that may be carried under mlieage tickets of one thousand or more miles. But before any common carrier, subject to the provision of this act, shall issue any such joint interchangeable mileage tickets with special privileges, as aforesaid, it shall file with the Interstate Commerce Commission copies of the joint tariffs of rates, fares, or charges on which such joint interchangeable mileage tickets are to be based, together with specifications of the amount of free baggage permitted to be carried under such tickets, in the same manner as common carriers are required to do with regard to other joint rates by section six of this act; and all the provisions of said section six relating to joint rates, fares, and charges shall be observed by said common carriers and enforced by the Interstate Commerce Commission as fully with regard to such joint interchangeable mileage tickets as with regard to other joint rates, fares, and charges referred to in said section six. It shall be unlawful for any common carrier that has issued or authorized to be issued any such joint interchangeable mileage tickets to demand, collect, or receive from any person or persons a greater or less compensation for transportation of persons or baggage under such joint interchangeable mileage tickets than that required by the rate, fare, or charge specified in the copies of the joint tariff of rates, fares, or charges filed with the Commission in force at the time. The provisions of section ten of this act shall apply to any violation of the requirements of this proviso.

Proviso to section twenty-two added by the Act of February 8, 1895.

Proviso applies only to the issuance of such tickets and the terms, conditions and the persons to whom issued must be without discrimination. Larrison v. Chicago & G. T. R. Co., 1 I. C. C. 147, 1 I. C. R. 369. Excursion and commutation tickets are not the basis for fixing price of mileage tickets. Associated Wholesale Grocers of St. Louis v. Mo.

« PředchozíPokračovat »