A clause in the charter of a railroad company, requiring it to trans port "all merchandise and property," does not oblige it to become a common carrier of money.-Kuter v. Mich. Cent. R. Co., 1 Biss. (U. S.) 35, Fed. Cases, No. 7955.

A stockyards company, having by its charter an option of becoming a common carrier, which becomes such a carrier as to dead freight, but does not undertake to carry live stock, merely permitting railroads to use its tracks for that purpose, is not a common carrier of live stock.― Cattle Raisers' Assn. v. Fort Worth & D. C. R. Co., 7 Inters. Com. R. 513.

A carrier need not furnish facilities to transport all personal property that may be tendered it, but only such as it is accustomed to carry.- Pfister v. Cent. R. Co., 70 Cal. 169, 11 Pac. 686.

A railroad is a common carrier only of what it holds itself out to carry. It may carry only freight or only passengers, or only a particular class or classes of freight.-Wiggins Ferry Co. v. East St. L. U. R. Co., 107 Ill. 450.

A common carrier is not bound to carry for every person tendering goods of any description, but only according to its public profession. -Johnson v. Midland R. Co., 4 Exch. (Eng.) 367.

A railroad is not bound to carry every description of goods, and between all places on its line, but only such goods and from such places as it has publicly professed to do, and has conveniences for the purpose.-Johnson v. Midland R. Co., 4 Exch. (Eng.) 367.

[13] Delivery as part of transportation.

Transportation by rail undoubtedly involves a suitable delivery.— St. L. Hay & G. Co. v. C. B. & Q. R. Co., 11 Inters. Com. R. 82.

[14] What constitutes a tender of goods for transportation.

A "tender" of cars by a shipper for transportation consisted of repeated notifications and requests.- Held, that this was sufficient to impose a liability on the carrier, as anything further on shipper's part would have been a waste of time and money.- State ex rel. Cumberland T. & T. Co. v. T. & P. R. Co., 52 La. Ann. 1850, 28 So. 284.

[15] Remedy against carrier for failure to transport.

Whether statutory remedies supplant existing remedies,- see post, § 40, note [2].

Where a carrier refused to receive goods for carriage except upon payment of an unreasonable sum, the shipper, at common law, had a right of action in damages.- Texas & P. R. Co. v. Abilene Cotton Oil Co., 204 U. S. 426, 27 Sup. Ct. (U. S.) 350, revg. s. c. 12 Tex. Ct. R. 498, 85 S. W. 1052.

A statute will not be construed as taking away a common law right existing at the date of its enactment, unless it is found that the preexisting right is so repugnant to the statute that its survival would in effect deprive the subsequent statute of its efficacy.- Texas & P. R. Co. v. Abilene Cotton Oil Co., 204 U. S. 426, 27 Sup. Ct. R. (U. S.) 350, revg. s. c. 12 Tex. Ct. R. 498, 85 S. W. 1052.

A complaint alleging a conspiracy between railroad companies and an association of elevator owners whereby the latter refused to handle the grain of a particular elevator, states a good cause of action.Kellogg v. Lehigh V. R. Co., 61 App. Div. (N. Y.) 35, 70 N. Y. Supp. 237.

Refusal to furnish facilities, etc., is merely a private injury for which the remedy by an action for damages is adequate and complete.People ex rel. Ohlen v. N. Y. L. E. & W. R. Co., 22 Hun (N. Y.), 533.

The measure of compensation for refusing to furnish facilities, etc., is the difference, less the expenses of transportation, between the value of the property at the place where it was offered and that to which it was intended to be taken.- People ex rel. Ohlen v. N. Y. L. E. & W. R. Co., 22 Hun (N. Y.), 533.

In an action against a railroad for refusal or delay to receive and transport goods, the shipper must show a tender of the customary price of carrying the goods offered for shipment, or a readiness and willingness to pay according to the course and usage of the company in such case. Galena & C. U. R. Co. v. Rae, 18 Ill. 488.

Having the means of transportation, carriers 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.

Texas statute required carriers to furnish adequate transportation for all property, and made them liable for damages from their refusal, etc.- Held, that the shipper could recover, on showing tender of goods and readiness to pay freight charges.- Galveston, H. & S. A. R. Co. V. Schmidt, 25 S. W. 452 (Tex.).

If a company wrongfully refuses to carry property, the measure of damage is the difference between its value at the place of destination when, if carried, it should have reached there, and its value, at such time, at the place whence it should have been taken, including the necessary expense of storing, loss by deterioration, etc., accruing by reason of its detention, and deducting the reasonable expense of transportation.- Galena & C. U. R. Co. v. Rae, 18 Ill. 488.

[16] Duty as to depots and grounds.

Provisions relating to stations and use of stations and grounds,-see N. Y. R. R. L., § 34.

Establishment and maintenance of stations and waiting rooms,- see post, § 50, note [4].

It is a railroad's duty to afford a safe and convenient passage from its depot to the highway.-Hoffman v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. Co., 75 N. Y. 605, affg. s. c. 13 Hun (N. Y.), 589.

A painted car body, no matter how strong or durable it may be, is not a proper facility for the storage of incoming and outgoing freight in any locality of sufficient consequence to be a station for the reception and delivery of freight traffic.- Rockland Co. Citizens v. N. J. & N. Y. R. Co. Decided by the N. Y. Public Service Commission for the Second District, April 16, 1908.

[17] Duty to furnish passengers with seats.

Statute obliging carriers to furnish passengers with seats merely declaratory of common law,— see ante, note [1].

Standing room in the passage way is not proper accommodation for passengers. Willis v. L. I. R. Co., 34 N. Y. 670, affg. s. c. 32 Barb.

(N. Y.) 398.

A city ordinance required that between certain hours a sufficient number of street-cars should be run to provide a seat for every passenger from whom a fare was demanded.-Held, that it not appearing that the ordinance was under all circumstances unreasonable and oppressive, it should be permitted to stand, to be enforced except in cases where it might be made to appear that the operation of the provisions were unreasonable or oppressive.- North Jersey St. R. Co. v. Jersey City, N. J. L., 67 Atl. 1072.

The contract of a carrier of passengers by railway is one not only to furnish the passengers with transportation but also with a seat. The passenger need not surrender his ticket until he is furnished with a seat. If the passenger chooses to accept transportation without a seat, he must, on demand, pay his fare. If unwilling to ride unless a seat is furnished him, he must get off at the first opportunity, and may recover as damages such sum as will compensate him for the breach of the contract, including such damages as are the natural and immediate result of such breach. - Memphis & C. R. Co. v. Benson, 85 Tenn. 627, 4 S. W. 5.

[18] Duty to render special services.

Duty of carrier to publish charges for special services, see post. § 28, notes [19]-[21].

Discriminations in charges for specific services,- see post, § 31, note [62].

Refrigeration, etc., is a part of the reasonable facilities which must be furnished by a carrier holding itself out to carry perishable commodities. -The Southwark, 191 U. S. 1, 24 Sup. Ct. R. (U. S.) 1.

The court will, in a proper case, require a carrier to furnish proper facilities for the loading and unloading of livestock.- Butchers & Drovers' Stockyards Co. v. L. & N. R. Co., 67 Fed. 35.

A carrier may construct and operate an elevator of its own, or make some arrangement with the owner of an elevator for such a service.Allowances to Elevators by U. Pac. R. Co., 12 Inters. Com. R. 99.

A carrier may furnish elevation for grain at any point where it may be convenient for shippers, whether at the destination or for transfer in transit.- Allowances to Elevators by U. Pac. R. Co., 12 Inters. Com. R. 99.

A carrier may unload for consignees at the destination if it does so for all shippers alike.- Allowances to Elevators by U. Pac. R. Co., 12 Inters. Com. R. 99.

Icing and refrigeration of cars is not a mere incident to the transportation service, but is part of that service itself.- Matter of Charges for Transportation of Fruit, 11 Inters. Com. R. 129.

A carrier cannot refuse to furnish the ice and supervise the icing of a refrigerator car.- Matter of Charges for Transportation of Fruit, 11 Inters. Com. R. 129.

The duty of a carrier holding itself out to carry perishable fruit is not simply to furnish a refrigerator car, but to ice the car and keep it at a proper temperature.- Matter of Charges for Transportation of Fruit, 11 Inters. Com. R. 129.

The stopping of a commodity in transit for the purpose of treatment or reconsignment is in the nature of a special privilege, which the carrier may concede, but which the shipper cannot, in the present state of the law, demand as a matter of lawful right. St. Louis Hay & G. Co. v. Mobile & O. R. Co., 11 Inters. Com. R. 90.

Carriers must furnish ice for use in refrigerator cars.— Re Transportation of Fruit, 10 Inters. Com. R. 360.

A carrier fulfills its duty by furnishing reasonable terminal facilities for the various kinds of traffic. It is not bound to furnish the same facilities for all descriptions of traffic. What is reasonable provision in a given instance depends largely on the conditions and surroundings of the particular locality.- Palmers' Board of Trade v. Pa. R. Co. 9 Inters. Com. R. 61.

If all shippers applying cannot be provided with desired facilities, the plan or method adopted should be the one affording the largest public accommodation with the smallest amount of individual hardship.- Palmers' Board of Trade v. Pa. R. Co., 9 Inters. Com. R. 61.

Where one road has a contractual right to run over the tracks of another company to reach points on its own line, the Interstate Commerce Act does not require it to receive or discharge traffic at points on the

line of such other company, where the sufficiency of the local service rendered by the latter is not questioned.-Alford v. Chicago, R. I. & P. R. Co., 2 Inters. Com. R. 582, 771, 3 I. S. C. C. R. 473.

It is the duty of railroads, so far as they have authority under their charter and the laws, to increase their business by all usual and customary means, and to furnish the public with all needful facilities for safe, cheap and speedy transportation.- Stewart v. Erie & W. Transp. Co., 17 Minn. 372.

When a railroad puts a refrigerator car of a transportation company into its train, it thereby makes such car its own, and puts on itself the duty of keeping it properly refrigerated, so that for failure so to do it is liable to the shipper.- New York, P. & N. R. Co. v. Cromwell, 98 Va. 227, 35 S. E. 444, 49 L. R. A. 462.

An act requiring a railroad to afford all reasonable facilities for the receiving and forwarding of traffic, etc., does not compel a company to maintain or use its railway or stations.- Darlaston Local Board v. London & N. W. R. Co., 1894, 2 Q. B. D. (Eng.) 694

[19] Determination as to fulfillment of duty.

The term "adequate and reasonable facilities" to which any community is entitled is a relative expression and may be considered as calling for such facilities as might be fairly demanded, regard being had, among other things, to the size of the place, the extent of the demand for transportation, the cost of furnishing additional accommodations asked for and to all other facts which would have a bearing upon the question of convenience and cost.-Atlantic C. L. R. Co. v. Wharton, 207 U. S. 328, 28 Sup. Ct. R. (U. S.) 121, revg. s. c. 74 S. C. 80, 54 S. E. 224.

A 15.4 per cent. winter reduction in the suburban train service of a railroad from that extended in the summer, held not to be unreasonable in view of the fact that as compared with the summer months, there was an 80 per cent. diminution in the number of commuters using these trains in the winter.-Residents on Far Rockaway Branch v. L. I. R. Co. Decided by the N. Y. Public Service Commission of the Second District, February 19, 1908.

Additional train service ordered on the line of the New Jersey and New York R. Co. between New City and Nanuet.- Rockland Co. Citizens v. N. J. & N. Y. R. Co. Decided by the N. Y. Public Service Commission for the Second District, April 16, 1908.

What constitutes reasonable and adequate facilities for the handling of particular traffic is a question of fact under the circumstances.— Baker v. Boston & M. R. Co. N. H., 65 Atl. 386.

In determining whether or not the roadbed, track, rolling stock, and other equipment of a common carrier is reasonably sufficient, and is