SAME RATE FOR LONGER AND SHORTER DISTANCES.-Continued. Rice v. Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fé Railroad Company et al. Ordinarily longer distances warrant higher charges, but carriers may lawfully accept the same aggregate, though less profitable, rates for longer distances, provided such carriers do not "subject any particular person, company, firm, corporation, or locality, or any particular description of traffic, to any undue or unreasonable prejudice or disadvantage." James & Mayer Buggy Company v. Cincinnati, New Orleans and FOREIGN AND DOMESTIC TRAFFIC. New York Board of Trade and Transportation et al. v. Pennsylvania Railroad Company et al. FOOD PRODUCTS. In re Alleged Excessive Freight Rates and Charges on Food See Reasonable Rates; Relative Rates; Unjust Discrimination; PREJUDICE AND DISADVANTAGE. Bates v. Pennsylvania Railroad Company et al. Proctor & Gamble v. Cincinnati, Hamilton and Dayton Railroad See Preference or Advantage. PRESUMPTION. FILING OF SCHEDULES RAISES NO PRESUMPTION AS TO THE LEGALITY OF RATES. San Bernardino Board of Trade v. Atchison, Topeka and Santa PROCEEDING. REDUCTION OF RATE DURING PENDENCY. Bates v. Pennsylvania Railroad Company et al. BEFORE COMMISSION. In re Alleged Excessive Freight Rates and Charges on Food McMillan & Co. v. Western Classification Committee. IN UNITED STATES COURTS. (Ib.) INSTITUTED BY MERCANTILE SOCIETY.— Boston Fruit and Produce Exchange v. New York and New England Railroad Company et al. See Complaint; Concession of Relief. PRODUCERS. Warner v. New York Central and Hudson River Railroad Com- In re Alleged Excessive Freight Rates and Charges on Food Delaware State Grange, etc., v. New York, Philadelphia and See Reasonable Rates. PROOF. See Evidence; Burden of Proof. PUBLIC INTEREST. Lehmann, Higginson & Co. v. Southern Pacific Company et al. Manufacturers' and Jobbers' Union of Mankato v. Minneapolis Rice, Robinson & Witherop v. Western New York and Pennsylvania Railroad Company. Board of Trade of the City of Chicago v. Chicago and Alton Rail road Company et al. McMillan & Co. v. Western Classification Committee. Kauffman Milling Company v. Missouri Pacific Railway Com- Delaware State Grange, etc., v. New York, Philadelphia and Shamberg v. Delaware, Lackawanna and Western Railroad Com- New York and Northern Railway Company v. New York and RAILROAD COMPANY. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS. In re Alleged Excessive Freight Rates and Charges on Food ACCOUNTS OF, WHEN ALSO A MINER AND SHIPPER OF COAL.- OWNER OF CAPITAL STOCK OF COAL COMPANY. SOLVENCY. Coxe Brothers & Co. v. Lehigh Valley Railroad Company. New York and Northern Railway Company v. New York and See Carriers; Reasonable Rates. RAILROAD REGULATION. IN THE STATES. Report of Interstate Commerce Commission. IN FOREIGN COUNTRIES.— Report of Interstate Commerce Commission. See Interstate Commerce; Interstate Commerce Commission. RAILROADS. CONSOLIDATION OF. Third Annual Report of Interstate Commerce Commission. IN FOREIGN COUNTRIES. (Ib.) GRANT OF TRACKAGE RIGHTS FOR THROUGH BUSINESS. Alford v. Chicago, Rock Island and Pacific Railway Company. NOT A COMMON HIGHWAY.-The tracks of a railroad are not a common highway upon which any one can enter and use his own cars for transportation purposes against the objection of the company owning the tracks. Worcester Excursion Car Company v. Pennsylvania Railroad Company. See Preference and Advantage; Carriers; Cars; Contracts; Agreements. Lehmann, Higginson & Co. v. Southern Pacific Company et al. CONSOLIDATION OF COMPETING. Rice, Robinson & Witherop v. Western New York and Pennsylvania Railroad Company. Report of Interstate Commerce Commission. See Carriers. RATE MAKING. COMBINATION RATES NOT SHOWN ON TARIFFS.-The theory of a combination rate made up of a through rate to some point and the local back to another point on the same line, without showing the straight rate on the schedules, although popular with carriers, is an anomaly in rate making. A straight rate to every point on a line and duly shown on the tariff sheets, is undoubtedly the only correct method. Lehmann, Higginson & Co. v. Southern Pacific Company et al. See Rates; Tariffs. RATES. GROUP. DISPARITY IN. First Annual Report of Interstate Commerce Commission. Imperial Coal Company et al. v. Pittsburgh and Lake Erie Rail- Rend v. Chicago and Northwestern Railway Company. Stone & Carten v. Detroit, Grand Haven and Milwaukee Railway Kauffman Milling Company v. Missouri Pacific Railway Com- First Annual Report of Interstate Commerce Commission. UNSTEADINESS IN. (lb.) WARS OF. (Ib.) INFORMATION CONCERNING.-Duty of carriers in respect to furnishing precise information to the public concerning all matters affecting rates and charges in transportation, stated. SINGLE. Martin et al. v. Chicago, Burlington and Quincy Railroad Company et al. LOCAL AND THROUGH, CONSIDERED. (Ib.) Business Men's Association of the State of Minnesota v. Chicago, MUST BE EQUAL AND OPEN.— PASSENGER. In re Tariffs of Transcontinental Lines. In re Passenger Tariffs and Rate Wars. Third Annual Report of Interstate Commerce Commission. THROUGH, DEFINED.— Chamber of Commerce of the City of Milwaukee v. Flint and MILLING IN TRANSIT. (Ib.) EXPORT. Myers, survivor, v. Pennsylvania Company et al. New York Produce Exchange v. New York Central and Hudson Third Annual Report of Interstate Commerce Commission. ON DOMESTIC AND EXPORT SHIPMENTS. (Ib.) THROUGH EXPORT, INLAND PROPORTION OF. (Ib.) LOCAL.-Previous payment of, to point of shipment does not justify exception to fourth section. MILEAGE. (Ib.) James & Abbott v. East Tennessee, Virginia and Georgia Railway Company et al. McMorran et al. v. Grand Trunk Railway Company of Canada Third Annual Report of Interstate Commerce Commission. New Orleans Cotton Exchange v. Cincinnati, New Orleans and Chicago, Rock Island and Pacific Railway Company v. Chicago Poughkeepsie Iron Company v. New York Central and Hudson ON LIVE CATTLE IN CAR LOADS. Leonard v. Chicago and Alton Railroad Company. Chappell v. Chicago and Alton Railroad Company. ON CARLOAD AND LESS THAN CARLOAD SHIPMENTS. Thurber et al. v. New York Central and Hudson River Railroad Leggett & Co. v. New York Central and Hudson River Railroad Greene v. New York Central and Hudson River Railroad Com- WHEN CHANGES ARE NOT JUSTIFIABLE. Bates v. Pennsylvania Railroad Company et al. COMBINATION, WHEN UNLAWFUL.-When combination rates are made which are different from the rates specified in the tariffs as published and filed, or when made by the employment of two or more classifications upon the same shipment, they are in contravention of the statute. In the matter of the Tariffs and Classifications of the Atlanta and West Point Railroad Company et al. MUST BE SHOWN ON PUBLISHED TARIFFS. (Ib.) NOTICE OF ADVANCES AND REDUCTIONS. In re Acts and Doings of Grand Trunk Railway Company of Third Annual Report of Interstate Commerce Commission. Under the amendments of March 2, 1889, to the statute requiring ten days' previous notice of advances and three days' previous notice of reductions in rates, they can not be varied from day to day, or oftener, to meet fluctuations in ocean rates. New York Produce Exchange v. New York Central and Hudson HOW DEMORALIZED BY WATER COMPETITION.— Third Annual Report of the Interstate Commerce Commission. EFFECT OF STATE ON INTERSTATE RATES. (Ib.) PASSENGER EXCURSION.-Passenger excursion rates are required to be published according to the provisions of section 6 of the act to regulate com merce. In re Passenger Tariffs. Pittsburg, Cincinnati and St. Louis Railway Company v. Baltimore and Ohio Railroad Company. TO PARTIES.-When party rates are lower than contemporaneous rates for single passengers they constitute discrimination and are illegal. (lb.) THROUGH AND LOCAL.-Through rates are not required to be made on a mileage basis, nor local rates to correspond with the divisions of a joint through rate over the same line. McMorran et al. v. Grand Trunk Railway Company of Canada et al. Crews et al. v. Richmond and Danville Railroad Company. New Orleans Cotton Exchange v. Cincinnati, New Orleans and Detroit Board of Trade v. Grand Trunk Railway Company et al. New Orleans Cotton Exchange v. Cincinnati, New Orleans and Poughkeepsie Iron Company v. The New York Central and Hud- Chicago, Rock Island and Pacific Railway Company v. Chicago and Alton Railroad Company. ADDITIONAL TRAIN.-It was a regulation of the respondent company, published on its public tariff schedules, that the conductors should collect fare on trains from passengers without tickets by adding 25 cents to single-trip |