Слике страница
PDF
ePub

curred in such joint rate or that it was filed with the Interstate Commerce Commission by their joint action.-U. S. v. Pa. R. Co., 153 Fed. 625.

Where an initial carrier establishes a joint through route between certain points and publishes a schedule of rates for such transportation, an indictment against a shipper for receiving an unjust discrimination through the sending of his goods over another route between the same points at a less rate need not allege that any shipper has been required to pay a different rate over the latter route nor that shipments were ever made over the former route at the published rate.-U. S. v. Vacuum Oil Co., 153 Fed. 598.

An indictment under the Elkins Act need not allege that the published rate is a reasonable rate and need not set out in full the carrier's tariffs, but is sufficient if it avers what the published rates were and that certain property was transported at a preferential rate.-U. S. v. Standard Oil Co., 148 Fed. 719.

An allegation in an indictment that full schedule rates were paid by the shipper to the carrier, and that a rebate therefrom was subsequently granted under a previously made unlawful agreement, sufficiently makes out wilful failure to observe the published tariff.-U. S. v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. Co., 146 Fed. 298.

An indictment for the violation of Interst. Com. Act, § 6, forbidding the charging of a greater or less rate than that contained in the published schedules, which avers that the railroad company is a common carrier and sets forth the schedule rates and further avers that the defendants were officers of the railroad and charged the schedule rates on shipments by a certain person during a certain period, and that said defendants paid a rebate on each car so transported, sufficiently sets forth transactions which resulted in the giving of less than the schedule rate then in force, and it is not a sufficient objection that the day or days upon which the shipments were made are not stated, nor that it is not charged that when the shipments were made it was intended to demand and receive a less rate than the schedule rate.-U. S. v. Hanley, 71 Fed. 672.

[11] Lawfulness of issuance of passes.

Receiving of free transportation by public officers,- see ante, § 15, note [3].

A railroad company may not lawfully exchange free transportation with an omnibus and transfer company, nor grant free transportation to the officers and employees of the same.- Petition of Frank Parmlee Co., 12 Inters. Com. R. 46.

[graphic]

Caretakers who sort the newspapers on special trains are not entitled to free transportation as caretakers of the kinds of traffic enumerated in Interst. Com. Act, § 1.-- Transportation of Newspaper Employees, 12 Inters. Com. R. 16.

Carriers may give free transportation only to such employees as are bona fide and actually such.- Complaint of Ill. Cent. R. Co., 12 Inters. Com. R. 7.

A carrier may not lawfully give free transportation to land or immigration agents not its actual employees.- Complaint of Ill. Cent. R. Co., 12 Inters. Com. R. 7.

Issuance of free passes to shippers on account of freight furnished is unlawful.— Milk Prod. P. Assn. v. D. L. & W. R. Co., 7 Inters. Com. R. 92.

Interst. Com. Act, § 22, is exceptive in character, and permits the issuance of free transportation only to the classes of persons specified therein. In re Boston & M. R. Co., 3 Inters. Com. R. 717, 5 I. C. C. R. 69.

[ocr errors]

Giving free transportation to city aldermen, etc., because of their position, is unlawful.- Harvey v. L. & N. R. Co., 2 Inters. Com. R. 662, 3 Inters. Com. R. 793, 5 I. C. C. R. 153.

An annual pass to a person not a regular employee of the issuing carrier but under an agreement to throw it what business he could, is unlawful.- Slater v. No. Pac. R. Co., 2 Inters. Com. R. 32, 243, 2 I. C. C. R. 359.

The furnishing of a pass, under a contract by which the recipient becomes a railroad policeman and gets for his service an annual pass together with a fixed salary, is not the giving of a "free pass."-Dempsey v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. Co., 146 N. Y. 290, 40 N. E. 867, affg. s. c. 81 Hun (N. Y.), 156, 30 N. Y, Supp. 724.

A person appointed as railroad policeman, under N. Y. R. R. L., § 58, is a public officer within the meaning of the section of the Constitution as to free passes.- Dempsey v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. Co., 146 N. Y. 290, 40 N. E. 867, affg. s. c. 81 Hun (N. Y.), 156, 30 N. Y. Supp. 724.

[12] Who are gratuitous passengers.

The holder of a pass who has compensated the carrier therefor cannot in any sense be regarded as a gratuitous passenger.- Smith v. N. Y. C. R. Co., 24 N. Y. 222.

[13] Giving of passes as an unjust discrimination.

Passes were given by a railroad to persons not belonging to any of the excepted classes mentioned in Interst. Com. Act, § 22. It has been

held that such an act constitutes an unjust discrimination. In re Charge to Grand Jury, 66 Fed. 146.

[14] Construction of statutes relative to passes.

The proviso clause of Interst. Com. Act, § 1, as to the giving of free transportation, etc., should receive a narrow and strict construction.Petition of Frank Parmlee Co., 12 Inters. Com. R. 46.

The words " common carriers," in the proviso clause of Interst. Com. Act, § 1, refers only to the common carriers mentioned in the main clause, viz., those subject to the Act.-Petition of Frank Parmlee Co., 12 Inters. Com. R. 46.

Where Congress has expressly enumerated special classes of persons or things which may be or must be exempted and excepted from the operations of general provisions of a law, the Interstate Commerce Commission cannot enlarge the excepted classes by mere construction and include in them persons or things not thus expressly named in the Act itself. Transportation of Newspaper Employees, 12 Inters. Com. R. 16.

[15] Retroactive effect of statute.

The Act of Congress of July 29, 1906, forbidding issuance of free transportation, does not invalidate a contract previously made by the carrier, for sufficient consideration, for issuance of passes to complainants during their lives.- Mottley v. L. & N. R. Co., 150 Fed. 406.

A notary public who lawfully received a pass before the N. Y. Constitution, with its prohibition of passes, went into effect, may not use it thereafter as long as he holds his public office.- People v. Rathbone, 145 N. Y. 434, 40 N. E. 395, 28 L. R. A. 384.

[16] Decision of commission as to passes.

The Interstate Commerce Commission will not decide, upon an ex parte request, whether free passes may legally be given to certain classes of persons.- In re Disabled Soldiers and Sailors, 1 Inters. Com. R. 75, 1 I. C. C. R. 28.

[17] Prosecution for giving of free transportation.

In a prosecution of a carrier for discrimination where free transportation is alleged to have been given to one person, it is unnecessary to charge or prove that at the same time and on the same train there were other passngers paying fare.- State v. So. R. Co., 125 N. C. 666, 34 S. E. 527.

[graphic]

[18] Powers and duties of carrier as to issuance of special tickets and mileage.

Provisions as to reduced fares, excursion tickets, mileage books, etc., in interstate transportation,- see Interst. Com. Act, § 22, post, Appendix B.

Recovery of penalties for refusal to issue mileage books,- see ante, § 26, note [68].

A railroad company has the right to sell nontransferable excursion tickets and the condition therein contained that the same shall be nontransferable and shall be forfeited if used by any person other than the purchaser, is not only binding upon the original purchasers but upon any who acquire such tickets and attempt to use them in violation of those terms.- Bitterman v. L. & N. R. Co., 207 U. S. 205, 28 Sup. Ct. R. (U. S.) 91, affg. s. c. 144 Fed. 34.

The right to issue round trip excursion tickets given to carriers by the Interstate Commerce Act carries with it the duty on the part of the carriers to exercise due diligence to prevent the use of such tickets by other than the original purchasers. Otherwise the Act would give to carriers the right to disregard the prohibition against preferences which it was one of the great purposes of the Act to render efficacious.Bitterman v. L. & N. R. Co., 207 U. S. 205, 28 Sup. Ct. R. (U. S.) 91, affg. s. c. 144 Fed. 34.

Carrier may issue special tickets at reduced rates, in consideration of special conditions therein.- Delaware, L. & W. R. Co. v. Frank, 110 Fed. 689.

A carrier may issue mileage, excursion or commutation tickets, or discontinue the same in a reasonable discretion.- Sprigg v. B. & O. R. Co., 8 Inters. Com R. 443.

A mileage book, not good for any trip which passes through another state (e. g. Pennsylvania), is good for the portion of the trip which lies wholly within this state.- Horton v. Erie R. Co., 86 App. Div. (N. Y.) 379, 83 N. Y. Supp. 733, 65 App. Div. (N. Y.) 587, 72 N. Y. Supp. 1018.

A railroad company, required by law to issue mileage books, cannot impose arbitrary conditions on such issuance.- Trolan v. N. Y. C. & H. R. Co., 31 App. Div. (N. Y.) 320, 52 N. Y. Supp. 257.

Under a statute requiring railroads to issue mileage books, there is no consideration for a contemporaneous agreement contained in such books that the passenger will exchange such coupons for a ticket at a station, and the refusal of a conductor to accept such a mileage book for transportation subjects the carrier to a penalty.- Corcoran v. N. Y. C. & H. R. Co., 25 App. Div. (N. Y.) 479, 49 N. Y. Supp. 701; affd. 164 N. Y. 587, 58 N. E. 1086.

Under a statute requiring the issuance of mileage books by railroads, a railroad company cannot, as condition to the issuing of the book, require the purchaser to subscribe his name to a condition in such book, to the effect that if the ticket be presented by any person other than the one named in the ticket the same should be forfeited and taken up by the agent or conductor to whom it might be presented.— Watson v. N. Y. Ont. & W. R. Co., 24 Misc. (N. Y.) 628, 28 N. Y. Supp. 84.

The law having made it the duty of railroad corporations to sell and accept mileage books for transportation, the issuance of such a book is not sufficient consideration to support a contract required by the company as to the manner of its use.- Corcoran v. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. Co., 20 Misc. (N. Y.) 197, 45 N. Y. Supp. 861; affd. 25 App. Div. (N. Y.) 479, 49 N. Y. Supp. 701, 164 N. Y. 587.

[19] Compelling issue of special tickets.

Power of Commission to compel issuance of special tickets,— see post, § 49, note [16].

Mandamus to compel issuing of special ticket,- see post, § 57, note [13].

An Act of the Michigan legislature (No. 90 of 1891), requiring the sale of thousand mile tickets for passenger transportation, is unconstitutional.- Lake Shore & M. S. R. Co. v. Smith, 173 U. S. 684, 19 Sup. Ct. R. (U. S.) 565, revg. s. c. 114 Mich. 460, 72 N. W. 328.

Interst. Com. Act, § 22, permits carriers to issue mileage, excursion, and commutation tickets, but does not confer authority to compel them to do so, ordinarily. To the extent necessary for their use, tickets of these descriptions are exempt from the general rules of the statute though the Commission may, as to them, direct compliance therewith. - Sprigg v. B. & O. R. Co., 8 Inters. Com. R. 443.

[20] Party-rate tickets.

See also, ante, § 31, note [57].

The issuance of party-tickets, giving a special rate to parties of ten or more persons, is not an unjust discrimination under Interst. Com. Act, §§ 1, 2, 3, as a carrier is only bound to give the same terms to all persons alike under the came conditions and circumstances and a fact which produces an inequality of circumstances justifies an inequality of charge.- Interst. Com. Commission v. B. & O. R. Co., 145 U. S. 263, 12 Sup. Ct. R. (U. S.) 844, affg. s. c. 43 Fed. 37.

The United States Government is not entitled to a party rate for the transportation of its soldiers.-U. S. v. Ch. & N. W. R. Co., 127 Fed. 785.

Party-rate tickets cannot be limited to particular classes of persons, but must be open to the whole public alike.- In the Matter of Party Rate Tickets, 12 Inters. Com. R. 110.

« ПретходнаНастави »