Carriers should not undertake to deprive a shipper of the legitimate advantages which his enterprise, investment and utilization of just rates, have secured for him.- Potter Mfg. Co. v. Ch. & G. T. R. Co., 4 Inters. Com. R. 223, 5 I. C. C. R. 514.

Use of hypothetical weights, out of proportion to the actual weights,. will not be permitted, as a means whereby tank shippers get more oil carried for the same money than barrel shippers.- Rice v. Cincinnati, W. & B. R. Co., 3 Inters. Com. R. 841, 5 I. C. C. R. 193.

A railroad is not obliged to continue the rates it had in force when it sold complainant the land on which he built up his business in reliance upon those rates.- Buchannan v. No. Pac. R. Co., 3 Inters. Com. R. 655, 5 I. C. C. R. 7.

Municipal subscriptions or other forms of gratuities to a carrier do not authorize preferences.- Lincoln Board of Trade v. Burl. & Mo. R. Co., 2 Inters. Com. R. 95, 2 I. C. C. R. 147.

A carrier does not discriminate unjustly against or for any locality, in refusing to send its cars to points off its own line when the business on such line keeps them in use.- - Riddle Co. v. B. & O. R. Co., 1 Inters. Com. R. 701, 778, 1 I. C. C. R. 372.

W.

A carrier may not adjust rates so as to prevent shippers of railroad material from selling it in the best available market.-Reynolds v. N. Y. & P. R. Co., 1 Inters. Com. R. 600, 685, 1 I. C. C. R. 393.

Where a railroad has for some years served persons having places of business along a certain track, delivering cars of freight and cars to be loaded and shipped, it is a common carrier with respect to the use it made of said track, and cannot discontinue service to one shipper while continuing to serve the others.- Agee v. L. & N. R. Co., 142 Ala. 344, 37 So. 680.

If, by reason of an unusual quantity of grain on the line for shipment, a want of means in the country of storing it, or other pressing cause, a railroad takes grain from wagons or from boats while grain remained in private warehouses for shipment, and in so doing, acted in good faith, intending to afford the largest public accommodation, and not from motives of partiality or oppression, it has not thereby incurred legal liability.- Galena & C. U. R. Co. v. Rae, 18 Ill. 488.

A carrier may not contract with one telegraph company not to transport the laborers or materials of another company at a special rate.- Cumberland T. & T. Co. v. Morgan's L. & T. R. Co., 51 La. Ann. 29, 24 So. 803.

A contract between a carrier and a shipper, that the former will maintain rates from the latter's factory not exceeding the rates from two other places where mills are located which compete with such shipper, is not, on its face, void, under a statute prohibiting unjust

discrimination.- Laurel Cotton Mills v. Gulf & S. I. R. Co., 84 Miss. 339, 37 S. 134, 66 L. R. A. 453.

A violation of rules warranting ejection from a train does not warrant the carrier in refusing to sell the offender tickets thereafter.— State ex rel. Atwater v. D. L. & W. R. Co., 48 N. J. L. 55, 2 Atl. 803. An agreement between a canal company and a coal company, providing that the coal company may ship coal by way of the canal, using not to exceed one-half the capacity of the canal, and fixing the tolls with reference to the market price of the coal, is not invalid.-Commonwealth v. D. & H. Canal Co., 43 Pa. 295.

The English Canal and Traffic Act of 1854 (17 and 18 Vict. ch. 31), provided" that every railway company * shall afford all reason

*

*
*

able facilities for the receiving and forwarding and delivering of traffic * *; and no such company shall give any undue or unreasonable preference or advantage to

*

*

*
*
*

any particular person or company *; nor shall any such company subject any particular person or company or any particular description of traffic, to any undue or unreasonable prejudice or disadvantage in any respect whatsoever." A railway company made a practice of carrying coal in very large quantities, but for convenience in handling the large amount of traffic over its road it made a practice of carrying coal for colliery owners only, from the pit's mouth to stations where such colliery owners had cells appropriated to their use for the reception and sale of their coal. The complainant was a coal merchant, and on a certain day he tendered 16 cars or trucks loaded with coal to the railway company at one of its stations, to be forwarded to three other stations on its road where the complainant had no cell or siding appropriated to his special use for the reception of his coal trucks and the sale of coal. The railway company declined to receive and haul his trucks, although they were in a fit and proper condition to pass over its road, whereupon he sought to compel the company to do, so.- Held, that owing to the large amount of traffic in coal over the company's road it had an undoubted right to say that it would haul coal for colliery owners only who had acquired the requisite facilities for the receiving and disposing of coal promptly on arrival at its destination, as otherwise the carrier would not have the requisite control over its road. If the privilege demanded by complainant were accorded him, it would have to be accorded to all other persons, and the carrier would be deprived of the benefit of an arrangement which it had devised to ensure the safe and convenient operation of its road. Accordingly, notwithstanding the broad inhibition in the Traffic Act above quoted, a carrier handling coal in very large quantities is entitled to make regulations with respect to the manner of receiving and transporting it so that it may be handled expeditiously, economically, safely, with

out any unnecessary interference with the carrier's other business. It follows, of course, that regulations made by a carrier with these objects in view and really designed to promote them, cannot be complained of on the ground that they operate as a preference in favor of those who comply with them or as a discrimination against those who do not.Oxlade v. N. E. R. Co., 15 C. B. (N. S.) (Eng.) 680.

[31] Actions by shipper-Right of action.

Recovery of overcharge,- see ante, § 26, notes [52], [57].

Actions arising from discriminations in rates,— see ante, § 31, notes [81]-[88].

Right of action by connecting carrier to recover for unjust discrimination,- see post, § 35, note [29].

Enjoining discriminations between connecting carriers,- see post, § 35, note [30].

Actions to recover for violations of long and short haul rule,- see post, § 36, notes [37]-[41].

Actions for failure to furnish or for discrimination in furnishing cars, see also post, § 37, notes [17]-[23].

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

Mandamus to compel rendering of services without discrimination,— see post, § 57, note [13].

Under a statute prescribing penalties for "extortion or unjust discriminations," recovery cannot be had for failure to furnish cars or transportation, as required by that Act.- Bond v. Wabash, St. L. & P. R. Co., 67 Iowa, 712, 25 N. W. 892.

Where the acts of discrimination are of daily recurrence, the party aggrieved is entitled to an injunction to restrain the continuance of the wrongs complained of, the remedy at law being inadequate.- Louisville & N. R. Co. v. Central Stock Yards Co., 30 Ky. L. R. 18, 97 S. W. 778.

Mandamus will lie, at the instance of a complainant, to force a carrier to give facilities equal to those given a favored rival.- State v. Tex. & P. R. Co., 52 La. Ann. 1850, 28 So. 284.

Where the shipper requested the initial carrier to route his goods by a shorter route, which was wrongfully denied, he can recover damages. -Houston & T. C. R. Co. v. Buchanan, 15 Tex. Ct. R. 521, 94 S. W. 199.

Where the carrier has rendered special gratuitous service for one shipper and not for another, the latter may recover the cost of rendering the same service for his goods.— Evershed v. London & N. W. R. Co., L. R. 2 Q. B. D. (Eng.) 254.

A complaint alleging a conspiracy between railroad companies and an association of elevator owners whereby the latter deny equal advantages to 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.

A complaint for discrimination in facilities held not to state a cause of action.- Meyers v. Ch. M. & St. P. R. Co., 50 Minn. 371, 52 N. W. 962.

There is no adequate remedy at law where a railroad discriminates against a shipper by refusing to deliver or receive freight at his switches.- Interstate Stockyards Co. v. Indianapolis U. R. Co., 99 Fed. 472.

In an action by a shipper against a carrier under a statute forbidding unjust discrimination between localities, it is not necessary for him to prove a personal discrimination and personal injury thereby.-Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. People, 121 Ill. 304, 12 N. E. 670.

In an action against a carrier for discriminations between localities under a state statute, it is not necessary to show that the rates charged were higher than those fixed or approved by the state commission.Cohn v. St. Louis, I. M. & S. R. Co., 181 Mo. 30, 79 S. W. 961.

[35] Criminal liability.

Criminal liability for discriminations in rates,- see ante, § 31, notes [89]-[94].

Indictment for discrimination by failure to furnish cars,- see post. § 37, note [24].

An indictment charging a violation of Interst. Com. Act, § 3, relating to the giving of undue preferences to persons or localities, is sufficient if it shows with requisite certainty, by any apt language, that the accused has committed any act which gives one shipper or class of shippers an advantage, or subjects others to a disadvantage, and it is unnecessary to allege that the services were rendered under substantially similar circumstances and conditions."-U. S. v. Tozer, 37 Fed. 635, 2 L. R. A. 444n.

66

§ 33. Transportation prohibited until publication of schedules; rates as fixed to be charged; passes prohibited;* [issuance of mileage, excursion and commutation tickets].—No common carrier subject to the provisions of this act shall after the first day of November, nineteen hundred and seven, engage or participate in the transportation of passengers, freight or property, between points within the state, until its schedules of rates, fares and charges shall have been filed and published in accordance with the provisions of this act. No common carrier shall charge, demand, collect or receive a greater or less or different compensation for transportation of passengers, freight or property, or for any service in connection therewith, than the rates, fares and charges applicable to such transportation as specified in its schedules filed and in effect at the time; nor shall any such carrier refund or remit in any manner or by any device any portion of the rates, fares, or charges so specified, nor extend to any shipper or person any privileges or facilities in the transportation of passengers or property except such as are regularly and uniformly extended to all persons and corporations under like circumstances. No common carrier subject to the provisions of this act shall, directly or indirectly, issue or give any free ticket, free pass or free transportation for passengers or property between points within this state, except to its officers, employees, agents, pensioners, surgeons, physicians, attorneys-at-law, and their families; to ministers of religion, officers and employees of railroad young men's Christian associations, inmates of hospitals, charitable and eleemosynary institutions and persons exclusively engaged in charitable and eleemosynary work; and to indigent, destitute and homeless persons and to such persons when transported by charitable societies or hospitals, and the necessary agents employed in such transportation; to inmates of the national homes or state homes for disabled volunteer soldiers and of soldiers' and sailors' homes, including those about to enter and those returning home after discharge, and boards of managers of such homes; to necessary caretakers of property in transit; to employees of sleepingcar companies, express companies, telegraph and telephone companies doing business along the line of the issuing carrier; to railway mail service employees, post-office inspectors, customs inspectors and immigration inspectors; to newsboys on trains, baggage agents, witnesses attending any legal investigation or proceed

Words in brakets are not a part of section heading as enacted.-ED.