Слике страница
PDF
ePub

Duty of a carrier to afford facilities for the interchange of traffic between connecting lines, see post, § 35. Duty of a railroad corporation to furnish sufficient cars, motive power, etc.,- see post, § 37.

Liability of carrier for loss or damage through delay or injury to property in transit,- see post, § 38.

Duty of carrier to provide facilities for continuous carriage without breakage of bulk, etc.,- see post, § 39.

Power of Commission to investigate with respect to the adequacy, security and accommodation of the service afforded by the carrier, see post, § 45, subd. 2.

Forfeitures and penalties for making unreasonable charges,- see post, § 56.

Power of Commission to correct unreasonable rates,- see post, § 49. General power to regulate property devoted to public use,- see ante, § 1, notes [1]-[22].

Charters as contracts with the state,- see ante, § 1, note [7]. Effect of reservation of power to amend charter on extent of regulative power,- see ante, § 1, note [12].

Exemptions from public control,- see ante, § 1, notes [16]-[21]. General rules of statutory construction, see ante, § 1, notes [23]-[40].

Who are common carriers,—see ante, § 2, notes [2]-[7].

Effect of receivership on power to regulate,-see ante, § 2, note [15]. What statutes regulating rates amount to a regulation of interstate

commerce, see ante, § 25, note [14].

Power of carriers to establish through routes and joint rates,- see post, § 30, note [1].

When shipper must tender published rate in payment for transportation,- see post, § 33, note [5].

General liability of carrier for loss of or injury to goods carried,see post, § 38, note [9].

For questions as to transportation of baggage,—see post, § 38, notes [38]-[44].

Power of Commission to compel stopping of trains,-see post, § 49, note [17].

Power of Commission to regulate speed of trains,- see post, § 49,

note [18].

Relief from ordinance regulating speed of trains,- see post, § 49, note [30].

Changes of motive power,- see post, § 50, note [3].

[1] Statutes declaratory of common law.

Construction of statutes declaratory of common law,—see ante, § 1,

note [31a].

Purpose of acts regulating railroads,- see ante, § 1, note [32].

Statute forbidding unjust discriminations merely declaratory of common law,- see post, § 31, note [22].

Subject to the two leading prohibitions that their charges shall not be unjust or unreasonable, and that they shall not unjustly discriminate so as to give undue preference or disadvantage to persons or traffic similarly circumstanced, the Interstate Commerce Act (as it stood March 30, 1896) leaves common carriers as they were at the common law, free to make special contracts looking to the increase of their business, to classify their traffic, to adjust and apportion their rates so as to meet the necessities of commerce, and generally to manage their important interests upon the same principles which are regarded as sound, and adopted in other trades and pursuits.- Cincinnati, N. O. & T. P. R. Co. v. Interst. Com. Commission, 162 U. S. 184, 16 Sup. Ct. R. (U. S.) 700; Interst. Com. Commission v. B. & O. R. Co., 43 Fed. 37; affd. 145 U. S. 263, 12 Sup. Ct. R. (U. S.) 844.

So far as a statute recognizes an obligation on the part of railroad companies to furnish their passengers with proper seats, it simply affirms a principle of the common law, and enforces a duty springing from their relations as carriers of passengers, and their undertaking with each passenger is to transport him safely and properly over their road.Willis v. L. I. R. Co., 34 N. Y. 670, affg. s. c. 32 Barb. (N. Y.) 398.

The provisions of the New York Railroad Law as to adequate facilities, etc, substantially declare the common law.- People ex rel. Ohlen v. N. Y. L. E. & W. R. Co., 22 Hun (N. Y.), 533.

[2] General duties and obligations of carriers.

Power of the state to regulate the mode of operation of railroads,— see ante, § 1, note [2].

General duty of carriers not to discriminate as to facilities and service, see post, § 32, note [1].

Carrier not bound, at common law, to undertake to deliver freight beyond its own lines,- see post, § 35, note [8].

The common law and the New York Railroad Law alike require a carrier to provide reasonable vehicles for the carrying and transportation of the property offered to it for that purpose, and to carry it for a reasonable compensation, and if it refuses to receive and carry property so offered within a reasonable time before the commencement of the trip, it is liable in damages to the party injured by the refusal.- People ex rel Ohlen v. N. Y. L. E. & W. R. Co., 22 Hun (N. Y.), 533.

The purpose of the provisions of the New York Railroad Law as to reasonable charges, accommodations, etc., is to secure a reasonable degree of equity in the business of railways, and to require them to afford the use of their facilities for the transportation of property to all who may have occasion for their employment, and without any unjust or unreasonable discrimination as to the terms of compensation.- People ex rel. Ohlen v. N. Y. L. E. & W. R. Co., 22 Hun (N. Y.), 533.

The duties, functions and property of railroad corporations are held in trust by each corporation for the public, and the sovereign forever regulates such corporation as its trustee.- People v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. Co., 28 Hun (N. Y.), 543.

A railroad corporation is primarily charged with the duty and burden of providing reasonably adequate and proper roadbed, track, motive power, equipment, and facilities for the service required, and of maintaining and operating its property so as to render to the public without unjust discrimination a reasonably safe and adequate service.- State v. Atlantic C. L. R. Co., Fla. 44 So. 213.

Common carriers are bound to carry indifferently, within the usual range of their business, for a reasonable compensation, all freight offered, and all passengers who may apply. For similar equal services they are entitled to the same compensation. All applying have an equal right to be transported, or to have their freight transported, in the order of their application. They cannot legally give undue and unjust preferences, or make unequal and extravagant charges. Having the means of transportation, they are liable to an action if they refuse to carry freight or passengers without a ground for such refusal.-New Eng. Exp. Co. v. Me. C. R. Co., 57 Me. 188.

[3] Compelling performance.

Compelling issuance of ticket,- see post, note [47].

Mandamus to compel performance of public duties,- see also, post, § 57, note [13].

Mandatory injunctions may be awarded to compel a common carrier to transport freight or to furnish transportation facilities.— Beech Creek R. Co. v. Planta Coal M. Co., 158 Fed. 36.

A shipper may bring action to compel a carrier to receive and transport an interstate shipment of goods without first applying to the Interstate Commerce Commission.- Danciger v. Wells Fargo & Co., 154 Fed. 379.

Railroads have themselves the power to regulate the time and manner in which passengers and property shall be transported, and so long as their operations are not suspended and their duties are not unperformed,

the courts should not interfere, especially upon the application of a private individual, to regulate the exercise of their discretion.- People ex rel. Wheeler v. L. I. R. Co., 31 Hun (N. Y.), 125.

Mandamus will not lie to compel a carrier to furnish transportation, or to charge only a reasonable rate.- People ex rel. Ohlen v. N. Y. L. E. & W. R. Co., 22 Hun (N. Y.), 533.

[4] Effect of ownership of freight by carrier.

That the carrier owns the freight does not relieve it from the provisions of the Interstate Commerce Act.- In re Grain Rates of Chicago G. W. R. Co., 7 Inters. Com. R. 33.

[5] Duty to furnish safe and suitable cars-In general.

See also, ante, note [2].

Exoneration from duty,- see post, note [20].

Regulation of method of heating cars not a regulation of interstate commerce, see ante, § 25, note [16].

General duty of carrier to furnish cars,- see post, § 37, note [1]. Duty of carrier to furnish special cars and equipment,― see also post, § 37, note [2].

Actions for failure to furnish cars,- see post, § 37, notes [17]-[23]. Power of Commission over cars and equipment,-see post, § 49, note [19].

If a railroad holds itself out as a common carrier of perishable fruit, it must provide the necessary refrigerator cars for the transportation of that commodity.- Matter of Charges for Transportation of Fruit, 11 Inters. Com. R. 129.

If a carrier imposes as a condition to the use of refrigerator cars the payment of an icing charge which is prohibitive, it in effect refuses to furnish the cars themselves.-Re Transportation of Fruit, 10 Inters. Com. R. 360.

It is the duty of a railroad company to furnish refrigerator cars for the transportation of fruit, but this duty arises not from the Interstate Commerce Act but from the common law duty as carrier.- Re Transportation of Fruit, 10 Inters. Com. R. 360.

It is the duty of the carrier to furnish the vehicle of transportation.Indep. Ref. Assn. v. W. N. Y. & P. R. Co., 4 Inters. Com. R. 162, 5 I. S. C. C. R. 415.

A common carrier is accountable, absolutely and irrespective of negligence, to furnish a safe and roadworthy coach.- Alden v. N. Y. Cent. R. Co., 26 N. Y. 102.

A railroad corporation must see to it that in the construction of the cars, engines etc., used by it, the utmost precaution, care and skill shall be employed to render them sufficient and safe.- Hegeman v. Western R. Co., 13 N. Y. 9, affg. s. c. 16 Barb. (N. Y.) 353.

A street surface railroad corporation, formed under the New York Railroad Law, may run cars exclusively for transporting express or freight.-- De Grauw v. L. I. Elect. R. Co., 43 App. Div. (N. Y.) 502, 60 N. Y. Supp. 163; affd. 163 N. Y. 597, 57 N. E. 1108.

A railroad must furnish proper and suitable cars for a shipment.— St. Louis, I. M. & S. R. Co. v. Marshall, 74 Ark. 597, 86 S. W. 802; Indianapolis, B. & W. R. Co. v. Strain, 81 Ill. 504; Jones v. St. L. & S. F. R. Co., 115 Mo. App. 232, 91 S. W. 158.

Failure to furnish safe and suitable cars makes the initial carrier liable for injuries therefrom, even though occurring beyond the carrier's own line.— St. Louis, I. M. & S. R. Co. v. Marshall, 74 Ark. 597, 86 S. W. 802.

That the shipper had prior to making shipment inspected the cars. and knew of their defects does not relieve the carrier of his liability for failure to furnish safe and suitable cars.-- St. Louis, I. M. & S. R. Co. v. Marshall, 74 Ark. 597, 86 S. W. 802.

A duty of furnishing separate trains for passengers and freight can be implied from the duty to furnish necessary rolling stock and equipment for the suitable and proper operation of the road.- People v. St. L. A. & T. H. R. Co., 176 Ill. 512, 52 N. E. 292, 35 L. R. A. 656.

A carrier is under obligation to have vehicles suitable for the transportation of various commodities which it carries.- Sloan v. St. L. K. C. & N. R. Co., 58 Mo. 220.

A carrier must furnish vehicles suitable in every respect, including strength and mode of construction for the safe transportation of such property as is usually carried by it.- Potts v. Wabash, St. L. & P. R. Co., 17 Mo. App. 394.

Where a railroad carries large quantities of milk, and it would be advantageous to the producers and the public to have it carried in special cars having icing facilities, etc., it is the duty of the railroad to furnish such cars.- - Baker v. Boston & M. R. Co., N. H. —, 65 Atl. 386.

A common carrier is bound to provide sufficient power and vehicles to carry all the goods which his invitation naturally brings to him.Branch v. Wilmington & W. R. Co., 77 N. C. 347.

Plaintiff asked for refrigerator cars for melons. The carrier had a contract with a car line company to furnish cars for shipments of this sort. Suitable cars were not furnished, and the shipper sent his melons by express and sued for the excess cost. He was permitted to recover

« ПретходнаНастави »