Obrázky stránek

tion of Fruit, 11 I. C. C. 129. Stage line over which part of a through movement is had not within Act. Wylie v. N. Pac. Ry. Co., 11 I. C. C. 145. Baggage transfer not within Act. Re Exchange of Free Transportation, 12 I. C. C. 39. A ferry transport joining in a through route and joint rate is within Act. Enterprise Transportation Co. v. Penn. R. Co., 12 I. C. C. 326, 335, 336. While a shipment to a local point with intention thereafter to make a new contract for shipment to an interstate point is not within the Act, the carrier must not act as agent of the shipper in making the reconsignment. Morgan v. M. K. & T. Ry. Co., 12 I. C. C. 525. No distinction between electric and steam roads. Chicago & M. Electric R. Co. v. Ii. Cent. R. Co., 13 I. C. C. 20. No jurisdiction over shipments from ports of United States to a foreign country not adjacent to this country. Cosmopolitan Shipping Co. v. Hamburg Am. Packet Co., 13 I. C. C. 266, 272, 273, 274; Lykes S. S. Line v. Commercial Union, 13 I. C. C. 310. Interstate movement regarded as an entirety and all carriers participating therein are subject to the Act. Subject fully discussed and cases cited. Leonard v. Kansas City S. Ry. Co, 13 I. C. C. 573. A terminal company owned by the same interests as a railroad within Act. “Railroad" includes depots, yards and grounds. Eichenberg v. So. Pac. Co., 14 I. C. C. R. 250. Order not enjoined. So. Pac. T. Co. v. Int. Com. Com., 166 Fed. 134. Interstate carriers by water are subject to Act only in respect to traffic transported under a common control, management or arrangement with a rail carrier. With respect to other traffic such water carriers are exempt from the provisions of the Act. Re Jurisdiction Over Water Carriers, 15 I. C. C. 205. Switching not within Act. Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry. Co. v. Becker, 32 Fed. 849. Water carrier from one state to another not joining in a through bill of lading with rail carriers not subject to Act. Terms of section defined. Ex Parte Koehler, 30 Fed. 867. A bridge crossing a stream from one state to another which is leased to a railroad is not a common carrier. Ky. & Ind. Bridge Co. v. L. & N. R. Co., 37 Fed. 567. A shipment from one to another point in a state and which was immediately reshipped by the agent of consignor to a point within the state within section. Cutting v. Fla. Ry. & Nav. Co., 46 Fed. 641. A state road by joining in a contract for through traffic becomes subject to the Act to Regulate Commerce. Augusta S. R. Co. v. Wrightsville & T. R. Co., 74 Fed. 522; United States v. Seaboard Ry. Co., 82 Fed. 563; Interstate Stock Yards Co. v. Indianapolis U. Ry. Co., 99 Fed. 472; Cassatt v. Mitchell Coal & Coke Co., 150 Fed. 32, 81 C. C. A. 80, 10 L. R. A. (N. S.) 99; Mitchell Coal & Coke Co. v. Cassatt, 207 U. S. 181, 187, 52 L. Ed. 160, 163, 28 Sup. Ct. 108, 110; U. S. v. New York, C. & H. R. R. Co., 153 Fed. 630. Affirmed, New York C. & H. R. R. Co., 212 U. S. '481, 500, 53 L. Ed. 613, 29 Sup. Ct. 304; United States v. Standard Oil Co., 155 Fed. 305. Reversed on another ground. Standard Oil Co. v. U. S., 164 Fed. 376, 90 C. C. A. 364. United States v. Union Stock Yards Co. of Omaha, 161 Fed. 919; United States v. Sioux City Stock Yards, 162 Fed. 556. If the state carrier received no freight on nor issues through bills of lading it is not subject. Int. Com. Com. V. Bellaire, Z. & C. Ry. Co., 77 Fed. 942; United States v. Chicago, K. & S. R. Co., 81 Fed. 783 ; United States v. Geddes, 131 Fed. 452, 65 C. C. A. 320; State of Iowa v. Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry. Co., 33 Fed. 391, 145 U. S. 632, 36 L. Ed. 857, 12 Sup. Ct. 978. Transportation from one point to another in the same state, though passing through another state, is not interstate commerce. United States v. Lehigh Valley R. Co., 115 Fed. 373; Lehigh Valley R. Co. v. Pennsylvania, 145 U. S. 192, 36 L. Ed. 672, 12 Sup. Ct. 806. Contra, United States v. Delaware, L. & W. R. Co., 152 Fed. 269, citing Hanley v. Kansas City, etc., R. Co., 187 U. S. 617, 47 L. Ed. 333, 23 Sup. Ct. 214; Lord v. Goodall N. & P. Steamship Co., 102 U. S. 541, 26 L. Ed. 224; Pacific Coast. S. S. Co. v. Railroad Comrs., 9 Sawy. 253, 18 Fed. 10. Hanley v. R. R., supra, definitely settles the question that such transportation is interstate commerce. Private car companies furnishing their care indiscriminately to carriers subject to Act. Int. Com. Com. v. Reichmann, 145 Fed. 235.

The test of subjection to the Act is through routing in interstate commerce. United States v. Wood 145 Fed. 405, 411. All carriers engaged in transporting interstate freight by a continuous passage are within the regulation of interstate commerce by Congress. United States v. Colorado and N. W. R. Co., 157 Fed. 321, 85 C. C. A. 27; same style, 157 Fed. 342, 85 C. C. A. 48. Phillips, district judge, dissenting in an able opinion. Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co. v. United States, 157 Fed. 830, 85 C. C. A. 194.

A water carrier operating entirely within a state but engaged in transporting interstate commerce is subject to regulation by Congress. The steamer Daniel Ball, 10 Wall, 77 U. S. 557, 19 L. Ed. 999. Exportation begins when goods are committed to a common carrier for transportation beyond the state. Coe v. Errol, 116 U. S. 517, 29 L. Ed. 715, 6 Sup. Ct. 475. A local carrier transporting interstate commerce under through bills of lading is engaged in interstate commerce. Cincinnati, New Orleans & T. P. Ry. Co. v. Int. Com. Com., 162 U. S. 184, 40 L. Ed. 935, 16 Sup. Ct. 700. For Commission decision see James & Mayer Buggy Co. v. Cincinnati, N. 0. & T. P. Ry. Co., 4 I. C. C. 744, 2 I. C. R. 625, 3 id. 682, Circuit Court, 56 Fed. 925, Circuit Court of Appeals, 64 Fed. 981, 13 U. S. App. 730. Int. Com. Com. v. Detroit, G. H. & M. Ry. Co., 167 U. S. 633, 42 L. Ed. 306, 17 Sup. Ct. 986. Affirming: 74 Fed. 803, 21 C. C. A. 103. Norfolk & W. R. Co. v. Penn., 136 U. S. 114, 34 L. Ed. 394, 10 Sup. Ct. 958; United States v. Wood, 145 Fed. 405; United States v. New York C. & H. R. Co., 153 Fed. 630, 632. Through transportation without through bills of lading make interstate commerce subject to the Act. United States v. Colorado and N. W. R. Co., 157 Fed. 321, and cases cited. Railroads that share in an agreed interstate rate subject to Act. L. & N. R. Co. v. Behlmer, 175 U. S. 618, 44 L. Ed. 309, 20 Sup. Ct. 209. See same case 6 I. C. C. 257, 4 I. C. R. 520, 71 Fed. 835, 83 Fed. 898, 28 C. C. A. 229, 42 U. S. App. 581. Mere intention to continue the transportation of an interstate shipment after it reaches its destination to another point in the same state as such destination will not make the last shipment interstate. Gulf, etc., R. Co. v. Texas, 204 U. S. 403, 51 L. Ed. 540, 27 Sup. Ct. 360. Express companies under the amendment of June 29, 1906, included. United States v. Wells Fargo Exp. Co., 161 Fed. 606. American Exp. Co. v. United States, 212 U. S. 522, 53 L. Ed. 635, 29 Sup. Ct. 315.

Notes of Decisions Rendered Since 1909.

“Wholly by the Railroad” discussed, Federal Sugar Refinery Company v. B. &0. R. Co., 17 I. C. C. 40, 46, 20 I. C. C. 200, Opin. of Com. Ct. Baltimore & 0. R. Co. v. U. S., 200 Fed. 779. Opinion Com. Court No. 38, page 499; for a related case see American Sugar Ref. Co. v. Delaware, L. & W. Ry. Co., 200 Fed. 652. Same styled case, 207 Fed. 733, 125 C. C. A. 251. Commerce Court sustained. U. S. v. B. & O. R. Co., 231 U. S. 274, 58 L. Ed. 218, 34 Sup. Ct. 75, known as Sugar Lighterage Case.

The provisions of the Act of June 18, 1910 stated; Shoemaker v. C. & P. Telephone Co., 20 I. C. C. 614. Section quoted in its application to pipe line, Re Pipe Lines, 24 I. C. C. 1; order of Int. Com. Com. enjoined; Prairie Oil & Gas Co. v. United States, 204 Fed. 798, Com. Court Nos. 75 to 80, p. 545, Com. Court reversed in part; U. S. v. Ohio Oil Co., 234 U. S. 548, 58 L. Ed. 1394, 34 Sup. Ct. 956. State rates not to be used in interstate shipments. Kanotex Refinery Co. v. A. T. & S. F. R. Co., 34 I. C. C. 271. Applies to rate in Alaska. Int. Com. Com. v. U. S. ex rel. Humbolt S. S. Co., 224 U. S. 474, 56 L. Ed. 819, 32 Sup. Ct. 556; reversing the Int. Com. Com. in Re Jurisdiction in Alaska, 19 I. C. C. 81, and affirming U. S. ex rel. Humbolt S. S. Co. v. Int. Com. Com., 39 Wash. Law Rep. 386. Jurisdiction over Canadian Railroads discussed but not determined. Rates on High Explosives, 33 I. C. C. 567. May require carriers in United States to cease from concurring in joint rates with Canadian lines. International Paper Co. v. 1. & H. Co., 3.3 I. C. C. 270. Jurisdiction over Cable Companies. White v. W. U. Tel. Co., 33 I. C. C. 500. Whether or not a shipment of freight is within the provision of the Act must be determined by “the essential character of the commerce, not its mere accidents." Tex. & N. 0. R. Co. v. Sabine Tram Co., 227 U. S. 111, 129, 130, 57 L. Ed. 442, 449, 33 Sup. Ct. 229, 234. Citing, Coe v. Errol, 116 U. S. 517, 29 L. Ed. 715. 6 Sup. Ct. 475; So. Pac. Terminal Co. v. Int. Com. Com. 219 U. S. 498, 55 L. Ed. 310, 31 Sup. Ct. 279; Railroad Com. of Ohio v. Worthington, 225 U. S. 101, 56 L. Ed. 1004, 32 Sup. Ct. 653; State v. Southern Kan. Ry. Co., 49 S. W. 252;

[ocr errors]

State v. International & Gt. Nor. R. Co., 71 S. W. 994; Gulf, C. &. S. F. Ry. Co. v. Fort Grain Co., 72 S. W. 419; Same v. Same, S. W. 815, and distinguished Gulf C. & S. F. Ry. Co. v. Texas, 204 U. S. 403. 51 L. Ed. 540, 27 Sup. Ct. 360. But see Chicago M. & St. P. R. Co. v. Iowa, 233 U. S. 334, 58 L. Ed. 988, 34 Sup. Ct. 592.

Notes of Decisions Rendered Since 1915.

See conflict between state and interstate, Sec. 44, ante. Conflict of authority with Canada avoided, Aetna Powder Co. v. W. R. Co., 39 I. C. C. 199. That part of a through movement to or from Canada within the United States is subject to regulation. Fairmont Creamery Co. V. Adams Ex. Co., 43 I. C. C. 724. Transportation from wharf track to team track within the Act. United States v. Ill. C. R. Co., 230 Fed. 940. Intent as to shipment and not form of bill of lading controls. McFadden v. A. G. S. R. Co., 241 Fed. 562, 154 C. C. A. 338. While natural gas is excluded, piping natural gas to another state is interstate commerce. Landon v. Public U. Com. 234 Fed. 152, 245 Fed. 950; reversed, holding not interstate commerce, Public Util. Com. v. Landon, 249 U. S. 236. State and interstate rates, Am. Ex. Co. v. So. Dak., 244 U. S. 617, 61 L. Ed. 1352, 37 Sup. Ct. 656; Ill. C. R. Co. v. Public Utilities Ill., 245 U. S. 493, 62 L. Ed. 425, 38 Sup. Ct. 170; Producers Trans. Co. v. Railroad Com., 251 U. S. 64 L. Ed. 40 Sup. Ct. During Federal control, states could not regulate state rates. Dakota Cent. Telephone Co. v. North Dakota, 250 U. S. 163, 63 L. Ed. 910, 39 Sup. Ct. 507, P. U. R. 1919, p. 717, 4 A. L. R. 1623, Northern Pac. R. Co. v. North Dakota, 250 U. S. 135, 63 L. Ed. 897, 39 Sup. Ct. 505, P. U. R. 1919 D. 705. Public Service Commission v. New England Tel. & Tel. Co., 232 Mass. 465. 122 N. E. 567, P. U. R. 1919D. 49, 4 A. L. R. 1662, 250 U. S. 195, 63, L. Ed. 934, 39 Sup. Ct. 511; Burleson v. Dempey, 250 U. S. 191, 63 L. Ed. 929, 39 Sup. Ct. 511; Southwestern Tel. Co. v. Houston, 256 Fed. 690.

$ 336. Not Applicable to Intrastate Transportation.—The provisions of this Act shall not apply:

« PředchozíPokračovat »