evidence or testimony shall not be used against such person on the trial of any criminal proceeding.

Section 9 of the original Act.

Sections 8 and 9 are so related that the annotations herein apply to each. There are many cases, formal and informal, awarding reparation without announcing any rule or principle. These are not sufficiently important to be cited.

The Commission cannot award damages for failure to furnish cars; an action therefore must be brought in a case at common law. Heck v. East Tenn., Va. & Ga. Ry. Co., 1 I. C. C. 495, 1 I. C. R. 755; Riddle v. New York, L. E. & W. R. Co., 1 I. C. C. 594, 1 I. C. R. 787. These cases were decided before the amendment of Section 16 by Act March 2, 1889, and since said amendment are not followed.-Rawson v. Newport N. & M. V. R. Co., 3 I. C. C. 6, 2 I. C. R. 626; MacLoon v. Chicago & N. W. R. Co., 5 I. C. C. 84, 3 I. C. R. 711.

་་

When a shipper gives instructions as to how his freight shall be routed, a violation of said instructions to his injury authorizes a recovery of the damage sustained.-Pankey v. Richmond & D. R. Co., 3 I. C. C. 658, 3 I. C. R. 33; Rea v. M. & O. R. Co., 7 I. C. C. 43. But if no instructions are given, carrier may route.-Dewey Bros. Co. v. B. & O. R. Co., 11 I. C. C. 481. But carrier must forward shipments with due regard to rights of shipper, and upon failure to do so, reparation allowed. Hennepin Paper Co. v. N. Pac. Ry. Co., 12 I. C. C. 535. These sections with reference to reparation show an intention upon the part of Congress to give the Commission power to fix rates.-Perry v. Florida C. & P. R. Co., 5 I. C. C. 97, 3 I. C. R. 740, 746, citing a large number of cases in which the Commission had fixed reasonable rates. A money order for reparation may issue against a receiver of a carrier.Loud v. South Carolina R. Co., 5 I. C. C. 529, 4 I. C. R. 205. Rate reduced, but, under the circumstances of the case, reparation denied.-James & Abbott v. Canadian Pac. R. Co., 5 I. C. C. 612, 4 I. C. R. 274, 283. Remedy for damages caused by delay, rotting, or other deterioration, or damage, not caused by violation of the Act is in the courts.-Duncan v. A. T. & S. F. R. Co., 6 I. C. C. 85, 4 I. C. R. 385. Each carrier participating in an overcharge is liable for the amount thereof,

and when an association complains against a rate, each of its members at the time of the hearing is entitled to reparation.-Independent Refiners' Asso. v. Western New York & Penn. R. Co., 6 I. C. C. 378, 384; order not enforced, Western New York & Penn. R. Co. v. Penn. Refining Co., 137 Fed. 343. A supplemental petition praying reparation filed two and a half years after an order declaring a rate illegal, dismissed.— Rice, etc. v. Western N. Y. & Penn. R. Co., 6 I. C. C. 455. A discriminatory rate, though itself reasonable, justifies an order of reparation.-Board of Trade of Lynchburg v. Old Dominion S. S. Co., 6 I. C. C. 632, 645. Order of reparation must be based on evidence that rate was unreasonable when paid. Grain Shippers' Asso. v. Ill. Cent. R. Co., 8 I. C. C. 158. Remedy by way of damages for unlawful rate is entirely inadequate and inconsistent.-McGrew v. Mo. Pac. Ry. Co., 8 I. C. C. 630, 642. Rates reduced, but reparation denied.— Johnson v. Chicago, St. P. M. & O. R. Co., 9 I. C. C. 221, 244. Shipments owned by several parties may be made under one bill of lading in the name of one consignor to one consignee at carload rates.-Buckeye Buggy Co. v. Cleveland, etc., Ry. Co., 9 I. C. C. 626; California Com. Asso. v. Wells Fargo Ex. Co., 14 I. C. C. 422; Export Shipping Co. v. Wabash R. Co., 14 I. C. C. 437. Sections constitutional, as trial by jury may be had when order of Commission sued on.-Cattle Raisers' Asso. v. Chicago, Burlington & Q. R. Co., 10 I. C. C. 83. The measure of damages is the difference between what should have been paid and what was exacted; where a shipper pays less than he should with the consent of the carrier, the carrier cannot recover the remainder of the lawful rate.-Gardner v. So. Ry. Co., 10 I. C. C. 342, 350, 351. When complainants refused to buy ties because of a failure of a carrier to furnish. cars, they could recover the profit they would have made had they bought the ties and been enabled to ship them.-Taxton Tie Co. v. Detroit S. R. Co., 10 I. C. C. 422, 426. Such failure to furnish cars must constitute discrimination and the proof of damages must be clear.-Richmond Elevator Co. v. Pere Marquette R. Co., 10 I. C. C. 629, 636. When a combination of locals was less than the through rate and a carrier refused to let a shipper ship so as to use the two locals, the shipper could recover reparation on all local shipments.Hope Cotton Oil Co. v. Tex. & Pac. Ry. Co., 10 I. C. C. 696.

Right not barred by pending suit in state court, otherwise if suit was pending in a federal court.-Gallogly v. Cincinnati, H. & D. Ry. Co., 10 I. C. C. 1, 9. After decision as to rate retained for further proceedings as to reparation. -Cattle Raisers' Asso. v. Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co., 11 I. C. C. 277. Profits may be recovered for discrimination, but reparation is not measured by the probability of profit.-Eaton v. Cincinnati, H. & D. Ry. Co., 11 I. C. C. 619, 626. Reparation allowed only from date complainant wrote a letter to Commission complaining of rate.—Texas Cement Plaster Co. v. St. L. & S. F. R. Co., 12 I. C. C. 68, 73. Reparation for breach of contract for a privilege not in the tariff cannot be allowed.Sheil & Co. v. Ill. Cent. R. Co., 12 I. C. C. 210. Claim for reparation should be made in original complaint.-Dallas Freight Bureau v. Gulf, C. & S. F. Ry. Co., 12 I. C. C. 223. For detriment to business directly and proximately resulting from discrimination, reparation may be awarded.-Rogers & Co. v. Philadelphia R. R. Co., 12 I. C. C. 308. Cannot recover because a rate less than the tariff is quoted and relied upon.-Poor v. Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co., 12 I. C. C. 418, 423, 469. Reparation does not follow reduction of rate as a matter of course.— Farmers' Warehouse Co. v. L. & N. R. Co., 12 I. C. C. 457. Paper rate not a basis for reparation.-Mo. & Kans. Shippers' Assn. v. M. K. & T. Ry. Co., 12 I. C. C. 483. The mere fact that a charge is discontinued or a rate reduced will not require the granting of reparation.-Leonard v. Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry. Co., 12 I. C. C. 492. Reparation not allowed when a through rate in excess of the locals is paid on a through shipment.-Morgan v. M. K. & T. Ry. Co., 12 I. C. C. 525. Shippers by reshipping may take advantage of the locals less than the through rate.-Laning-Harris Coal & Grain Co. v. Mo. Pac. Ry. Co., 13 I. C. C. 154. When shippers designate the route, they are not entitled to reparation because there was a cheaper route.-Stedman v. Chicago & N. W. Ry. Co., 13 I. C. C. 167; William Larsen Canning Co. v. Chicago & N. W. Ry. Co., 13 I. C. C. 286. Though a shipper must pay the rates legally established, he may recover the excess over a reasonable rate. Coomes v. Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry. Co., 13 I. C. C. 192. Protest when paying freight unnecessary.-Baer Bros. Mercantile Co. v. Mo. Pac. Ry. Co., 13 I. C. C. 329; So. Pine Lumber Co. v. So. Ry. Co., 14 I. C. C. 195; Nicola,

Stone & Myers Co. v. L. & N. R. Co., 14 I. C. C. 199. Complaint in name of an association not naming persons in whose behalf it is filed and not stating with reasonable particularity the shipments on which reparation is sought not sufficient to stop limitation. Missouri & Kansas Shippers' Asso. v. A. T. & S. F. Ry. Co., 13 I. C. C. 411. Informal written presentation of claim stops limitation.-Venus v. St. L. I. M. & S. Ry. Co., 15 I. C. C. 136. Reparation allowed only from date of filing supplemental petition.-Cattle Raisers' Asso. v. M. K. & T. Ry. Co., 13 I. C. C. 418. Where reduced rates have been received because of irregularities, correction of such no ground for reparation.-Bannon v. So. Ex. Co., 13 I. C. C. 516. Reparation awarded for refusing party-rate ticket to one when granted to others.-Koch Secret Service v. L. & N. R. Co., 13 I. C. C. 523. Reparation awarded for advancing a rate put in at the request of a shipper who had adjusted his business to the lower rate.-New Albany Furniture Co. v. Mobile, etc., R. Co., 13 I. C. C. 594. Commission has no jurisdiction to award damages for breach of contract.-La Salle, etc., R. Co. v. Chicago & N. W. R. Co., 13 I. C. C. 610. Excess rate paid may be recovered though shipper not damaged.-Burgess v. Transcontinental Freight Bureau, 13 I. C. C. 668. Reparation allowed only from date of filing complaint. -Id. Voluntary reduction of rate not conclusive of right to reparation for paying the higher rate.-Ottumwa Bridge Co. v. Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry. Co., 14 I. C. C. 121. The true owner paying the excessive charge can alone recover. Manufacturers selling F. O. B. their mill cannot recover.-Nicola, Stone & Meyers Co. v. L. & N. R. Co., 14 I. C. C. 199. Mistake in quoting rate does not relieve shipper from paying full tariff rate.-Foster Bros. Co. v. Duluth, etc., Ry. Co., 14 I. C. C. 232, 236. Misrouting at the highest rate entitles shipper to reparation.—McCaull-Dinsmore Co. v. Chicago G. W. Ry. Co., 14 I. C. C. 527; Cedar Hill Coal & Coke Co. v. Col. So. Ry. Co., 14 I. C. C. 606; Gus. Momsen & Co. v. Gila Valley, etc., Ry. Co., 14 I. C. C. 614. Reparation allowed because through rate exceeded sum of locals.-Minneapolis Threshing Mch. Co. v. Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry. Co., 14 I. C. C. 536; Sylvester v. Penn. R. Co., 14 I. C. C. 573; Hardenberg, D. & G. v. N. Pac. Ry. Co., 14 I. C. C. 579. In allowing reparation Commission takes no account of fact that less than

tariff rate was paid and must assume that full rate was paid. -Wilson v. Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry. Co., 14 I. C. C. 549, 550. When a car of particular capacity is ordered and higher capacity furnished, rate should be based on capacity of car ordered.-Am. Lumber & Mfg. Co. v. So. Pac. Co., 14 I. C. C. 561. Commission has no authority to adjudicate a claim against a shipper.-Laning-Harris Coal & Grain Co. v. St. Louis & S. F. R. Co., 15 I. C. C. 37. Reparation not awarded in this case where carrier voluntarily reduced rate.-Menefee Lumber Co. v. Tex. & Pac. Ry. Co., 15 I. C. C. 49. Cannot award reparation for failure to make prompt delivery.-Blume & Co. v. Wells Fargo & Co., 15 I. C. C. 53, 55. Commission has jurisdiction regardless of amount in controversy, but does not award costs or attorney's fees.-Washer Grain Co. v. Mo. Pac. Ry. Co., 15 I. C. C. 147, 151, 152. Jurisdiction to award damages for diverted shipments.-Woodward & Dickerson v. L. & N. R. Co., 15 I. C. C. 170. Commission may authorize a compromise of a claim for reparation.-Joice & Co. v. Ill. Cent. R. Co., 15 I. C. C. 239; Goff-Kirby Coal Co. v. Bessemer & Lake E. R. Co., 15 I. C. C. 553. No jurisdiction in Commission to require a shipper to make good an undercharge.-Falls & Co. v. Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry. Co., 15 I. C. C. 269. Should claim reparation in original complaint and not wait until after a determination of the question of the validity of a rate. -Morse Produce Co. v. Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry. Co., 15 I. C. C. 334. Scope of Sections 8 and 9 discussed, holding reparation may be awarded on past shipments.-Arkansas Fuel Co. v. Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry. Co., 16 I. C. C. 95, 98. Damages for loss of employment too speculative.-Allender v. Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co., 16 I. C. C. 103. An association may maintain a complaint for damages to its members.-California Com. Asso. v. Wells Fargo Ex. Co., 16 I. C. C. 458, 463. In a suit for damages for violating the fourth section brought in the United States Circuit Court, the measure of damages is the difference between the amount paid for the shorter haul and the charge for the longer haul; the jury may allow interest, but such interest dates from last payment.-Junod v. Chicago & N. W. Ry. Co., 47 Fed. 290; Osborne v. Chicago & N. W. Ry. Co., 48 Fed. 49; reversed on other points, Chicago & N. W. Ry. Co. v. Osborne, and same v. Junod, 52 Fed. 912,