[16] What constitutes notice to shipper of rules for shipment.

A pamphlet hanging in a railroad office, containing and purporting to contain rules and regulations for shipment of freight, is not constructive notice of its contents to a shipper.- Coupland v. Housatonic R. Co., 61 Conn. 531, 23 Atl. 870.

Filing and publication of passenger excursion rates,- see post, § 33, note [21].

Rates which are required to be filed and published cover not merely the carriage of the goods but services rendered in receiving and delivering property as well.- Phelps v. Tex. & P. R. Co., 6 Inters. Com. R. 36.

Schedules should contain all the rates and classifications, so that the shipper need not apply to have a rate quoted to him.- In re The Tariffs of the Transcontinental Lines, 2 Inters. Com. R. 203, 2 I. C. C. R. 324.

A company cannot be required by mandamus, to state in the posted schedule the rate per mile or the distances between stations, in the absence of statute or order of the commission requiring it.-State v. Pensacola & A. R. Co., 27 Fla. 403, 9 So. 89.

Right of carrier to change or modify regulations,- see post, § 29,

note.

Rates and regulations as to depot storage must be published.— Blackman v. So. R. Co., 10 Inters. Com. R. 352.

All a carrier's regulations as to the transportation, etc., of private cars should be published in the rate schedules.- Carr v. No. Pac. R. Co., 9 Inters. Com. R. 1.

The schedules filed and posted should state, among other terminal charges, the rules and regulations of the carrier as to storage, demurrage, etc.- Pennsylvania Millers' Assn. v. Phila. & R. R. Co., 8 Inters. Com. R. 531.

In a separate circular, defendant instructed its agents to disregard the regular published tariff rates to certain points and to use combination rates, whenever the latter were lower.-Held, that this practice was unlawful, for such rule should have been duly published on the tariff schedules.- Spillers v. L. & N. R. Co., 8 Inters. Com. R. 364.

Any rules or regulations which "in any wise change, affect or determine any part or the aggregate of such rates," must be stated upon

the schedules, and issuance of separate circulars containing such rules is not sufficient. Suffern, H. & Co. v. Ind. D. & W. R. Co., 7 Inters.

Com. R. 255.

Carriers should publish and enforce each and every one of their rules and regulations as to storage of freight, reconsignment of freight, diversion of cars to shippers' use, distribution of freight in part lots, and all similar concessions or privileges.― American Warehouseman's Assn. v. Ill. Cent. R. Co., 7 Inters. Com. R. 556.

Rules and regulations which would affect the aggregate rate must be made known to the public in the same manner as other changes in schedules.- Suffern, H. & Co. v. Ind. D. & W. R. Co., 7 Inters. Com. R. 255.

By separately stating transportation and icing charges, carriers may make reasonable charges for both services.- Knudsen-Ferguson Co. v. Mich. Cent. R. Co., 148 Fed. 968.

It is the duty of the carrier to file, publish, and observe, its icing charges.- Matter of Charges for Transportation of Fruit, 11 Inters. Com. R. 129.

Where carriers compel shippers to pay icing charges or do without necessary refrigeration for their traffic, they make these charges a part of the shipper's cost of transportation and subject to regulation under the Interstate Commerce Act.- Consolidated Forwarding Co. v. So. Pac. Co., 10 Inters. Com. R. 590.

Charges for refrigeration should be published and strictly adhered to exactly as are all other charges for services in transportation.- Re Transportation, etc., of Fruit, 10 Inters. Com. R. 360.

Under the Illinois statute making it the duty of the Railroad and Warehouse Commission to prepare and publish a schedule of rates and fares, a classification of freight, made by the Commission in connection with the schedule of rates, is a part of the schedule.- St. Louis & C. R. Co. v. Blackwood, 14 Ill. App. 503.

The fact that a railroad gives free cartage of property from its station to the places of residence or business of shippers at Grand Rapids without stating such circumstances in the tariff schedules, is not a violation of Interst. Com. Act, § 6, relative to the filing and publishing of schedules.- Interst. Com. Commission v. Detroit, G. H. & M. R. Co., 167 U. S. 633, 17 Sup. Ct. R. (U. S.) 986, revg. s. c. 57 Fed. 1005, affg. s. c., 74 Fed. 803.

The transferability of a passenger ticket is a privilege or facility affecting the value of the service, and any regulation affecting the same must be announced in the published schedules.— Baltimore & O. R. Co. v. Hamburger, 155 Fed. 849.

A privilege of stopping hogs in transit for sorting and reconsignment under the through rate from the point of origin must be set forth in the tariff sheets, else it cannot be enforced in favor of any particular shipper or shipping point.- Shiel v. Ill. Cent. R. Co., 12 Inters. Com. R. 242.

If stop-over privileges are permitted for any purpose or on any basis, all the facts and circumstances connected therewith should be clearly stated in the published tariff, so the public generally may enjoy their benefits. Matter of Rates & Practices of M. & O. R. Co., 9 Inters. Com. R. 373.

Permitting cotton to be stopped off for grading and compressing, under a contract of through shipment and the practice of "floating cotton," is a privilege which is a part of the service covered by the rate, and should be specified in the published schedules.- Unlawful Rates in Transp. Cotton by K. C. M. & B. R. Co., 8 Inters. Com. R. 121.

The published tariffs should clearly set forth whether the standard for the crates used in the shipment of vegetables, etc., be one of weight or dimensions.- Re Alleged Unlawful Charges by Savannah, F. & W. R. Co., 8 Inters. Com. R. 585.

[23]

Only legitimate charges to be included.

The law does not contemplate that a rate shall be made by including charges which the carrier does not in fact meet; and a tariff or schedule of transportation rates does not conform to the law which makes the rate charged depend on one or more factors which do not enter into the transportation as it is actually conducted.- Pacific Coast Assn. v. So. Pac. Co., 12 Inters. Com. R. 364.

[24] Power of commissions as to matters to be included in schedules.

Should the Interstate Commerce Commission direct, by general order, that railway companies should thereafter regard cartage, when furnished free, as one of the terminal charges, and include it as such in their schedules, such an order might be regarded as a reasonable exercise of the Commission's powers.- Interst. Com. Commission v. Detroit, G. H. & M. R. Co., 167 U. S. 633, 17 Sup. Ct. R. (U. S.) 986, revg. s. c. 57 Fed 1005, affg. s. c. 74 Fed. 803.

[25] Effect of failure to publish regulations.

Effect of failure to file and post notices of advances in rates,- see post, § 29, note.

If a carrier does not, in its schedules filed pursuant to Interst. Com. Act, § 6, announce that passenger tickets sold by it are not transferable, a provise of non-transferability contained in any such ticket is unlawful and void.- Baltimore & O. R. Co. v. Hamburger, 155 Fed. 849.

[26] Legislative control over joint tariffs.

Where two or more roads have established a joint tariff, such tariff is as much within the control of the legislature as that of a single line.— Minneapolis & St. L. R. Co. v. Minnesota, 186 U. S. 257, 22 Sup. Ct. R. (U. S.) 900, affg. s. c. 80 Minn. 191, 83 N. W. 60.

[27] Publication of joint rates.

What constitute through or joint rates,- see post, § 30, note [2]. Joint tariffs must show what carriers unite in making them,- see post, § 30, note [5].

Filing of statement showing concurrence in joint tariff,- see post, § 30, note [9].

Under Interst. Com. Act, § 6, and the orders of the Interstate Commerce Commission of July 21, 1887, it is not necessary for either of the connecting lines to publish their joint tariff at a non-competing point, or to volunteer information of such tariff to shippers.- Chicago & N. W. R. Co. v. Osborne, 52 Fed. 912, revg. 48 Fed. 49; certiorari denied, 146 U. S. 354, 13 Sup. Ct. R. (U. S.) 281.

Carriers arranging for a through route and also for a joint rate must give notice to the world of such arrangement, but carriers forming through routes without joint rates need file and publish only the separately established rates, fares, and charges applied to the through transportation."-Through Routes and Through Rates, 12 Inters. Com.

R. 190.

Combination rates which are filed and published as single rates from the point of shipment to destination, are governed by the provisions of the Interstate Commerce Act as to the filing of through rates.- Gustin v. A., T. & S. F. R. Co., 8 Inters. Com. R. 277.

Joint tariffs need not be duplicated by each company uniting in making them, if a written statement is filed by each company that such tariffs are filed with its approval and authority.- In re Joint Tariffs and Schedules, 1 Inters. Com. R. 76, 1 I. C. C. R. 225.

[28] Reservation in schedule of right to route goods.

An initial carrier, in publishing its joint through rates, may reserve in its notice the right to route the goods beyond its own lines.- Southern Pac. R. Co. v. Interst. Com. Commission, 200 U. S. 536, 26 Sup. Ct. R. (U. S.) 330, revg. s. c. 132 Fed. 829.

The Southern Pacific and other railroads published a guaranteed through rate on citrus fruit from California to the Atlantic. The shippers routed the goods from the termini of the initial carrier and illegally procured rebates from the connecting carriers. To prevent this, the initial carriers republished the rate and reserved the right to route the goods beyond their own terminals. The Interstate Commerce Commission held this arrangement illegal, as subjecting the shipper to an undue advantage. The Circuit Court sustained the Commission on the ground that the routing by the carrier amounted to a pooling of freights. - Held, that this was error. Since the purpose of the Interstate Commerce Act is to facilitate commerce and prevent discrimination, it will not be interpreted to make illegal a salutory plan of preventing rebates.— Southern Pac. R. Co. v. Interst. Com. Commission, 200 U. S. 536, 26 Sup. Ct. R. (U. S.) 330, revg. s. c. 132 Fed. 829.

[29] What rates carrier may publish in absence of agreement for through route.

In the absence of some agreement or understanding with a connecting line by which a joint tariff is authorized, a carrier cannot lawfully publish or apply any other rates than those which it fixes for transportation between points reached by it.- New York, N. H. & H. R. Co. v. Platt, 7 Inters. Com. R. 323.

[30] Supervision of commission over classifications.

Power of Commission over classifications,-see post, § 49, note [20]. The Interstate Commerce Commission will refrain from interfering with efforts for a uniform classification of freight.— McMillan v. Western Class. Committee, 3 Inters. Com. R. 282, 4 I. C. C. R. 276.

[31] Classifications do not necessarily do exact justice.

There never can be certainty of exact justice in a question of classifi cation and rate, and classification in its nature must be a compromise.— Proctor v. C. H. & D. R. Co., 2 Inters. Com. R. 614, 3 Inters. Com. R. 131, 374, 4 I. C. C. R. 87; distinguished, 9 Inters. Com. R. 440.

[32] Determination of proper classifications — Objects.

Classification to be published in schedule,— see ante, note [20].

In making up the classification of freight, the object should be to make the rates bear upon all with relative equality.- Pyle v. E. Tenn., V. & G. R. Co., 1 Inters. Com. R. 600, 767, 1 I. C. C. R. 465.