« SebelumnyaLanjutkan »
net earning of eight per centum per annum on the cost of construction and equipment of said railroad or plant. But in no case shall the rate, toll or charge be more than the service is reasonably worth, considering the cost thereof. (13)
carrier, and therefore invalid, and until then or until such law has been otherwise amended or lawfully nulified, the Public Service Commission has jurisdiction as prescribed by the act creating it, to compel observance by the carrier of such law. Public Service Commission v. B. & 0. R. R. Co., Bien. Rep. 1915-16, p. 111; 76 W. Va. 399.
RATE MAKING-POWER OF COMMISSION Under section 9, chap. 8, Acts 1915, W. Va., the Commission is authorized to investigate and act upon a proposed individual or joint rate the same as in the case of a rate which has been effective. Greer v. B. & O. R. R. Co., etc., Bul. No. 7; Bien. Rep. 1915-16, p. 145; P. U. R. 1916D286.
Where a railroad carrier and a shipper in a rate discrimination proceeding each proposes a schedule of rates on certain commodities between certain points, based on a comparison with similar rates between other points, the commission is not bound to adopt one of the two schedules proposed but may draw its own conclusions for such comparison and fix any rate which is just and reasonable. Greer v. B. & O. R. R. Co., etc., Bul. No. 7; Bien. Rep. 1915-16, p. 145; P. U. R. 1916D286.
Ripley on R. R. Rates and Regulations, p. 36; Beale & Wyman on Railroad Rate Regulations, secs. 840, 918; Jackman & Salt, Freight Rates, pp. 23, 37, 43; George Tilson Mill Co. v. N. P. R. Co., 8 1. C. C. 354; Wickwire Steel Co. Case, 30 . C. C. 415; Crushed Stone Case, 30 I. C. C. 22.
An application for an increase in water rates may be considered while the property is in the hands of a receiver and without waiting for the property to be disposed of and the receivership wound up. Re Benwood & McMechen Con. Water Co., Bul. No. 23; 1917 An. Rep. 169; P. U. R. 1916D-460.
RETURN GENERALLY (13) The price of a commodity furnished by a public utility should never exceed the value of that commodity to the public. Re Middlebourne Gas Co., Bul. No. 22; 1917 An. Rep. 109.
RETURN-FACTORS TO BE CONSIDERED A water utility should be allowed only such expenses as are reasonably necessary for the efficient performance of its duty to the public. Re Charles Town Water Co., Bul. No. 9; Bien. Rep. 191516. .p 84; P. U. R. 1916D-725.
In estimating the compensation for hauling a sleeping car received from a connecting carrier, consideration must be given to the amount saved by avoiding transfer of passengers by taxicabs which cost the railroad 25 cents per passenger. Public Service Commission v. C. & O. Ry. Co., Bul. No. 12; Bien Rep. 1915-16, p. 164, P. U. R. 1916E-353.
The average expense of a pump station in three six-month periods, rather than the expense during the last period, should be taken in ascertaining expenditures in fixing water rates. Re Benwood & McMechen Con. Water Co., Bul. No. 23: 1917 An. Rep. 169 P. U. R. 1916D-460.
In fixing operating expenses, the commission was guided by the average for the past five years and did not allow for the recognized recent increase in the price of all labor and materials, as this is a war burden which should not be borne by either the utility or its consumers alone, but should rather be a joint undertaking. Re Light Fuel & Power Co. etc., Bul. No. 39.
It would not be proper to take into consideration, in fixing rates for the future, either a deficiency or an excess in prior earnings, except to the extent of addition to capital investment for going value Re United Fuel Gas Co., Bul. No. 43.
RETURN-EXPENSES CHARGEABLE TO OPERATION OR CAPITAL The cost of drilling new wells, when paid for out of reasonable dividends or money advanced by stockholders, is a proper capital charge upon which consumers should pay a reasonable return. Bul. No. 34.
Water purchased from a utility under common ownership is a proper operating charge, where the selling utility is a foreign corporation and its investment cost is not included in the capital investment of applicant company. Bluefield v. Bluefield Water Works & Imp. Co., Bul. No. 34.
The cost of well drilling is not a proper operating expense of a natural gas company. Re Montgomery Gas Co., Bul. No. 28; 1917 An. Rep. 136; P. U. R. 1917C-924.
The cost, above the value of material in drilling new natural gas wells to meet the decrease in production, although ordinarily chargeable to capital, may be treated as an operating expense, where there is no other method by which the company can be remunerated for the expense. Re Clarksburg L. & H. Co., Bul. No. 18; 1 An. Rep. 53; P. U. R. 1917A-577.
"Expnese of Rate Case," as an operating charge, should be spread over a period of ten years instead of five years. Bluefield v. Bluefield Water Works & Imp. Co., Bul. No. 44.
RETURN-COST OF COMMODITY The reasonableness of the price paid for natural gas by a distributing company may be inquired into in a rate proceeding, where the seller is a subsidiary of a company which owns a majority of the stock of the buyer. Re Clarksburg L. & H. Co., Bul. No. 18; 1917 An. Rep. 53; P. U. R. 1917A577.
RETURN-SALARIES, OFFICE AND LEGAL EXPENSES A water company is entitled at least to a small expense allowance where it is valued at $106,000 and supplies 1356 domestic consumers. Re Benwood & McMechen Con. Water Co., Bul. No. 23, 1917 An. Rep. 169; P. U. R. 1917D-460.
Every order entered by the Commission shall continue in force until the expiration of the time, if any, named by the Commission in such order, or until revoked or modified by the Commission unless the same be suspended, modified or revoked by order or decree of a court of competent jurisdiction. (Acts of 1915, chạp. 8.)
Sec. 6. No public service corporation subject to the provisions of this act shall, directly or indirectly, by any special rate, rebate, drawback or other device
An expense of management and superintendence although slightly abnormal because of the plant being in the hands of a receiver, may be allowed in ascertaining the expenditures in fixing rates, where no additional allowance is made for normal legal services and increased wages. Re Benwood & McMechen Con. Water Co., Bul. No. 23; 1917 An. Rep. 169; P. U. R. 1917D-460.
The sum of $500 rather than $670.40 is an ample annual allowance for “office expenses" where the utility reports the expense for the first 11 months of the year as being only $366.29. Re Montgomery Gas Co., Bul. No. 28; 1917 An. Rep. 136; P. U. R. 1917C-924.
A charge of $5264 against operations of a water utility for the purpose of maintaining an office out of the state at which the general books of the company were kept was reduced to $1500, where the utility's local office was amply equipped for the conduct of its business. Re Bluefield v. Bluefield Water Works & Imp. Co., Bul. No. 31; 1917 An. Rep. 197; P. U. R. 1917E-22.
It may be that during the organization and financing of these subsidiary companies, while financing, constructing and developing the enormous plant of petitioners laying its pipe lines over rough and mountainous territory, endeavoring to find a market for its gas, salaries of the holding company amounting to $65,000 as included in the item of General Expenses was no more than they were entitled to receive but since this work has largely been completed and all that is now required is a general supervision of the business of those several subsidiary companies, it appears to the commission, especially in view of the high rates that petitioners are obliged to charge for their gas, that these services ought now to be performed for not to exceed 50% of the salaries formerly paid. Re W. Va. Central Gas Co., Bul. No. 40.
RETURN-INTEREST AS OPERATING EXPENSE
Interest on bonds is not a part of overhead current expenses. Re Benwood & McMechen Con. Water Co., Bul. No. 23; 1917 An. Rep. 169; P. U. R. 1916D-460.
Although not all of an interest item was a proper charge to operation and maintenance, since a part of it was used in paying interest on money borrowed by the receiver to redeem overdue bond coupons, an allowance was made for the entire item in ascertaining expenditures in fixing rates, where the amount was small and it was impossible to determine from the evidence what was a proper charge. Re Benwood & McMechen Con Water Co., Bul. No. 23; 1917 An. Rep. 169; P. Ù. R. 1917D-460
Interest should not be included in an estimate of operating expenses where the fund on which it accrues is included in the value of the property on which the rates are based. Re Montgomery Gas Co., Bul. No. 28; 1917 An. Rep. 136; P. U. R. 1917C-924.
RETURN-PAYMENT TO PARENT OR HOLDING COMPANY.
Interest paid by a subsidiary company to a holding company upon money advanced for the construction and purchase of its system is not a part of the former company's operating expenses where the rates are based upon the total value of the system including property acquired and constructed with such advances. Re Glenville Nat. Gas Co., Bul. No. 6; Bien. Rep. 1915-16, p. 120; P. U. R. 1915F-848.
RETURN-HAZARDS OF THE BUSINESS
A natural gas utility is entitled to a relatively high rate of income on the value of its property because of the hazard and rapid depreciation. Re Montgomery Gas Co., Bul. No. 28; 1917 An. Rep. 136; P. U. R. 1917C-924.
Owing to the hazardousness of the business and the rapid depletion of its property a natural gas company is entitled to receive a higher rate of return on its investment than other utilities. Re W. Va. Central Gas Co., Bul. No. 40.
On account of the fact that the production and sale of gas is a hazardous and uncertain business, that vast enterprises are now almost wholly
dependent upon the use of gas as a fuel, and that as a domestic fuel it adds greatly to the comfort and convenience of those to whom it is available at a reasonable price, as a matter of public policy and fairness to those engaged in the natural gas business, rates should be fixed so as to not only secure a liberal return for the capital and enterprise invested therein, but as well also to encourage and promote a further development and extension of said business. Re United Fuel Gas Co., Bul. No. 43.
RETURN-LOSS OF COMMODITY
A water company whose rates are insufficient to give a reasonable return upon the money invested will not be denied permission to increase its rates merely because there has been a large waste of water caused by defective plumbing in buildings owned by the utility and supplied by it with water and because it has been furnishing free service to tenants of such buildings where it does not appear that such waste has materially increased the operating cost, or that such discrimination has materially decreased the revenue. Re Gassaway Devel. Co., Bul. No. 2, Bien. Rep. 1915-16, p. 70; P. U. R. 1915D-551.
or method, charge, demand, collect or receive from any person, firm or corporation, a greater or less compensation for any service rendered or to be rendered, than it charges, demands, collects or receives from any other person, firm or corporation for doing a like and contemporaneous service under the same or substantially similar circumstances and conditions. (14) (Acts of 1913, chap. 9.)
RETURN-COMMON OWNERSHIP The ownership and interest of both a coal company and a railroad company being identical, any rate the commission might fix for carrying coal mined by the one and hauled by the other would not increase or decrease their aggregate earnings since the gain of one would be the loss of the other, and vice versa. Re Winifrede R R. Co., Bul. No. 36.
RETURN ON FAIR VALUE Rates should be so fixed as to allow to a utility economically and efficiently managed, revenues adequate to meet its operating expenses and fixed charges, and to allow a fair return upon the capital honestly and prudently invested; and rates which are either too low or too high, judged by this standard are unjust and unreasonable either to the utility or to the public. Re Gassaway Devel. Co., Bul No. 2; Bien Rep. 1915-16, p. 70; P. U. R. 1915D-551.
A natural gas company is entitled to a fair return on the actual investment honestly and judiciously made not only at the present time, but also during the preceding lean years. Re Glenville Nat. Gas Co., Bul. No. 6; Bien. Rep. 1915-16 p. 120; P. U. R. 1915F-848.
A public utility is entitled to a fair return upon the amount of capital “honestly and prudently invested." Re Bridgeport Nat. Gas & Oil Co., Bul. No. 8; Bien. Rep. 1915-16, p. 210; P. U. R. 1916C-353.
Re Norfolk & B. St. R. Co., P. U. R. 1915E-414; Re Valparaiso Tel. Co., P. U. R. 1915E-578.
In fixing the rate of return to which a utility is entitled consideration should be given to the value of its property, its actual investment, and the value of the service, to the consumer. Re Bridgeport Nat. Gas & Oil Co., supra.
It is well settled that public utilities are generally entitled to earn, over and above their necessary operating expenses and a proper allowance for depreciation, a return on the fair value of the property rightly used in the service of the public; but in no event should rates be fixed above the value to the public of the service rendered. Re Charles Town Water Co., Bul. No. 9, Bien Rep. 1915-16, p. 84; P. U. R. 1916D-725.
Smyth v. Ames, 169 U. S. 466; Minn. Rate cases, 230 U. S. 353; San Diego L. & W. Co. v. Nat. City, 174 U. S. 756; San Diego L. & T. Co. v. Jasper, 189 U.S. 439; Stanislaus Co. v. San Jaoquin, etc. Co., 192 U. S. 201; Re Middlebourne Gas Co., Bul. No. 22; 1917 An. Rep. 109; Re Charles Town Water Co., Bul. No. 8, P. U. R. 1916D-725. Re Winifrede R. R. Co., Bul. No. 36; Re W. Va. Central Gas Co., Bul. No. 40; Re United Fuel Gas Co., Bul. No. 43.
In the following cases the annual rate of return was allowed by the commission as indicated: Gas Cases:
Re Glenville Nat. Gas Co., Bul. No. 6; Bien. Rep. 1915-16, p. 120; P. U. R. 1915F-848, 12 to 15%.
Re Bridgeport Nat. Gas & Oil Co., Bul. No. 8; Bien. Rep. 1915-16, p. 210; P. U. R. 1916C253, 13%.
Re Montgomery Gas Co., Bul. No. 28; 1917 An. Rep. 136; P. U. R. 1917C-924, 15%.
Re United Fuel Gas Co., Bul. No. 43, 8% exclusive of depreciation and operating expenses. WATER CASES:
Re Charles Town Water Co., Bul. No. 9; Bien Rep.. 1915-16, p. 84; P. U. R. 1916D-725, 6% above depreciation and operating expenses.
Thorn v. Montgomery L. & W. Co., Bul. No. 11; Bien. Rep. 1915-16, p. 181; P. U. R. 1916C40°, 7%
Re Benwood & McMechen Con. Water Co., Bul. No. 23; 1917 An. Rep. 169; P. U. R. 1917D460 between 7 and 9%.
Warwood W. & L. Co., Bul. No. 25; 1917 An. Rep. 188; P. U. R. 1916C-329, from 8 to 10%. Bluefield v. Bluefield Water & Imp. Co., Bul. 31; 1917 An. Rep. 197; P. U. R. 1917E-22, 8%.
DISCRIMINATION IN RATES-BETWEEN LOCALITIES (14) A railroad freight rate which in itself is just and reasonable may, nevertheless be relatively unjust and therefore unlawful if undue preference is thereby afforded to one locality, or undue prejudice results to another. Greer v. B. & 0. R. R. Co. etc., Bul. No. 7; Bien. Rep. 1915-16, p. 145; P. U. R. 1916D-286.
The railroad passenger service given to one town should be extended to another only 2.9 miles distant on the same branch although the revenue will be small and the track is built only for freight, where the expense will not be great, and the extension is as well adapted for passenger service as the remainder of the branch, especially where the extension right of way was acquired under a promise of passenger service. Brady v. C. & C. Ry. Co., Bul. No. 14; Bien. Rep. 1915-16, p. 203; P. U. R. 1916E-855.
Public Service Corporations may reduce their rates to meet competition even to the extent of discriminating as to non-competitive points. Re United Fuel Gas Co., Bul. No. 21; 1917 An. Rep. 80; P. U. R. 1917A-923.
2. Wyman on Public Service Corporations, sec. 1729; Interstate Commerce Com., v. Southern R. Co., 117 Fed. 741; Interstate Commerce Com. v. Alabama Mid. R. Co., 168 U. S. 144; Inter
Sec. 7. It shall be unlawful for any public service corporation subject to the provisions of this act to make or give any undue or unreasonable preference or advantage to any particular person, company, firm, corporatlon or locality, or any particular haracter of traffic or service, in any respect whatsoever, or to subject any particular person, firm, corporation, company or locality, or any particular character of traffic or service, to any undue or unreasonable prejudice or disadvantages in any respect whatsoever. (15) (Acts of 1913, chap. 9.)
state Commerce Com. v. B. &0. R. R. Co., 145 U. S. 263; East Tennessee V. & G. R. Co. v. I. C. C. 181 U. S. 1.
A charge for hydrants located within the limits of the municipality, while making no charge for others located without the corporate limits, would constitute a discrimination. Re West End Water Co., Bul. No. 26; 1917 An. Rep. 121.
A contract with consumers in one town fixing rates does not prevent a natural gas company from making an increase beyond that rate in its uniform rate in all towns, where not to permit the increase in the one town would result in discrimination by reason of the fact that there is no difference in the cost of supplying the consumers in the different towns. Re Montgomery Gas Co., Bul. No. 28; 1917 An. Rep. 136; P. U. R. 1917C-924.
The commission approved rates for a consolidated telephone system that were higher than the rates fixed by municipal franchise for one of the constituant companies, forming a part of the system where the continuance of the franchise rate would constitute an unjust discrimination against other towns similarly situated. Re C. & P. Tel. Co., Bul. No. 32; 1917 An. Rep. 87; P. U. R. 1917E-955.
DISCRIMINATION IN RATES-BETWEEN CLASSES OF CONSUMERS The continuation of the practices by the defendant company in respect to charging a higher rate to the “no term contract" consumers than to the “five year contract consumers constitutes a violation of chapter 9, acts of the legislature of 1913. Huntington v. United Fuel Gas Co., 1 An. Rep. 198.
Sec. 6 of chap. 9, Acts 1913, making it unlawful for public service corporations to charge, demand, collect or receive a greater or less compensation from any person for any service rendered or to be rendered than it charges demands, collects or receives from any other person, etc., intended that no discrimination of any kind or character should be made by Public Service Corporations in rendering its service
and was intended to compel them to treat every person alike without discrimination or favoritism. Re Wheeling Electric Co., (Request for Ruling) 1 An. Rep. 237.
Since the legislature did not include in its exceptions, public service corporations engaged in the business or generating electricity, we must hold that it is unlawful for any public service corporation engaged in this business to charge a lesser rate to its employees than the rate it charges to the general public. Re Wheeling Electric Co., (Request for Ruling) 1 An. Rep. 237.
Any special concession a public service corporation makes necessarily reduces its revenue, which loss must either be borne by the company itself or by other consumers in receiving a less satisfactory service or services on less favorable terms. Re Wheeling Electric Co., (Request for Ruling) 1 An. Rep. 237.
The furnishing by a water company of free services to tenants in buildings belonging to the utility is discriminatory and a violation of the West Virginia statute. Re Gassaway Devel. Co.. Bul. No. 2; Bien. Rep. 1915-16, p. 70; P. U. R. 1915D-551.
A town should not be given free water for fire protection even though it cannot raise by taxes enough revenue to pay the proper charge. Re Warwood W. & L. Co., Bul. No. 25; 1917 An. Rep 153; P. U. R. 1917C-329.
Where industrial consumers are not paying a high enough rate in comparison with that paid by domestic consumers, the latter should not be burdened with an increase if it is possible to make up a deficiency in the return to the utility by an increase in the rates of the former without making their rates unreasonably high. Re W. Va. Îrac. & Elec. Co., Bul. No. 34.
One who merely takes into his house along with his family one or two students as roomers and boarders should not be considered as running a boarding house within the meaning of a franchise authorizing a water company to make special contracts with boarding houses, but is entitled to flat rates for residences. "S. Buckhannon v. Buck. W. & L. Co., Bul. No. 5; Bien. Rep. 1915-16, p. 186; P. U. R. 1915E-383.
DISCRIMINATION IN RATES-AS AFFECTED BY COMPETITION It is not unjust discrimination to fix rates so as to meet competition, even though it may result in a higher or lower rate for a greater or less service. Re United Fuel Gas Co., Bul. No. 43.
Competition in the case of public utilities whose rates are subject to regulation by governmental authorities is unwise and should not be encouraged. Re United Fuel Gas Co., Bul. No. 43.
DISCRIMINATION IN SERVICE-BETWEEN LOCALITIES (15) A common carrier does not do its full duty to its passengers which would dump them out at a crossing along its main line, located two miles away from a town of 1,400 inhabitants and require them to walk two miles
along the railroad track to arrive at their destination. Vawters v. C. & O. Ry. Co., 1 An. Rep. 74.
The railroad passenger service given one town should be extended to another only 2.9 miles distant on the same branch although the revenue will be small and the track is built only for freight, where the expense will not be great, and the extension is as well adapted for passenger service as the remainder of the branch, especially where the extension right-of-way was acquired under a promise of passenger service. Brady v. C. & C. Ry. Co., Bul. No. 14; Bien. Rep. 1915-16, p. 203; P. U. R. 1916E-855.
Sec. 8. All common carriers subject to the provisions of this Act shall, according to their respective powers, afford all reasonable proper and equal facilities for the interchange of traffic between their respective lines and for the receiving, forwarding and delivering of passengers and property to and from their several lines and those connecting therewith, and shall not discriminate in their rates and charges or methods or manner of service between such connecting lines; but this shall not be construed as requiring any such common carrier to give the use of its tracks or terminal facilities to another carrier engaged in a like business.
Trunk lines, or principal railroads, shall, in the distribution of cars and the furnishing of facilities treat industries and shippers, located on and tributary to lateral, industrial or tap lines, as if they were located directly on the track of the trunk lines or principal railroads, and not discriminate between such industries and shippers and those which may be located in direct proximity to their own tracks. And trunk lines or principal railroads shall allow and pay to the lateral, industrial or tap lines, a reasonable and equitable arbitrary or portion of the rate, (16) consistent with the service rendered, giving due consideration to the fact that such lateral, industrial or tap line originates and assembles the freight. But nothing out of the main line rate shall be allowed the shipper or owner for the use of what may be termed “plant facilities.” (Acts of 1913, chap. 9.)
The branch line is essentially a part of the main line so far as operations are concerned and the commission cannot distinguish any difference as to the legal duty of the carrier in failing to render passenger service, to a town situate on a branch line 2 miles distant from its main line than in a case where the town is located directly on the main line, and the company should refuse to make the stop there and prefer to make it some 2 miles away and decline to install a station at the seat of population. Vawter v. C. & 0. Ry. Co., 1 An. Rep. 74.
DISCRIMINATION-BETWEEN PATRONS OF CARRIERS. Insofar as section 66C of chapter 54, Code of 1916, contemplates equality of transportation facilities among shippers of coal, in point of mere convenience, not reasonable means of transportation within the ability of the carrier it applies only to mining industries having efficient and usual equipment for loading coal cars. B. & O. R. R. Co. v. Public Service Commission, P. U. R. 1918B-608; 94 S. E. (W. Va.) 545.
In view of a great shortage of cars suitable for coal shipments occasioned by extraordinary conditions bringing into temporary activity a great many mines that are not equipped with tipples for loading cars, but demand pro rata allotments to them of open-top cars for their shipments which cannot be furnished without serious detriment to permanent and properly equipped mines, the carrier, and the general public, a railroad company of which such allotments and distributions are demanded may, by promulgation of a regulation applicable to all such mines, assign its opentop cars to the permanent and properly equipped mines and box cars to those loading without tipples and from wagons and trucks. Such a regulation, under such circumstances, is neither unreasonable nor unjustly discriminatory. B. & O. R. R. Co. v. Public Service Commission, P. U. R. 1918B-608; 94 S. E. (W. Va.) 545.
A railway company is not prohibited by section 7, 8 and 9, chap. 9, Acts 1913, or by any rule or principle of the common law from granting to a local transfer company, in good faith and for public convenience, the exclusive privilege of occupying a portion of its station platform and ground for the purpose of soliciting patronage in the business of transferring through passengers and baggage, arriving on its trains, to the station of another railway company. The rights of a competing transfer company are not thereby violated. Rose v. Publio Service Commission, 75 W. Va. 1; 1 An. Rep. 86.
Kates v. Atl. Bag & Cab Co., 107 Ga. 636, 34 S. E. 372. Contra Pen. Co. v. Chicago, 181 Ill. 289; Ind. Union Ry. Co. v. Dohn, 153 Ind. 10; Cravens v. Rogers, 101 Mo. 253.
A complaint against operators of jitneys for refusing to carry negroes was dismissed without prejudice upon their having abated the discrimination. Charleston Int. R. R. Co. v. Smith, Bul. No. 4; Bien Rep. 1915-16, p. 133; P. U. R. 1915E-177.
(16) A railroad, acting under a charter as a common carrier, which operates a system of yard tracks and sidings connecting the different departments of a plant consisting of blast furnaces, rolling mills, steel works and tube mill with each other and with the trunk lines near it and performing the functions of moving cars to and from the customary places of loading and unloading, having all its stock owned by the officers of the tube company which it serves, and from which it leases about 612 miles of its track and operates the remainder, about 712 miles of track under contract with the said tube company, but owns its own locomotives and rolling stock and which has no facilities for serving the general public and in fact serves but one other industry and that only to the extent of about 2 per cent of its entire business, is entitled to a “reasonable and equitable arbitrary portion of the rate" charged by trunk lines. Bul. No. 41.
Industrial Railway Cases, 29 I. C. C. R. 212; 32 I. C. C. R. 129; 34 I. C. C. R. 596; Spotting Charge Case, 34 I. C. C. R. 609; Tap Line Cases, 212 U. S. 1; Atchison Ry. Co. Vo U. S. 232, U.S. 199.