From Monon, Ind. Distances and present and suggested rates to representative destinations-Continued [Destination area C.-Embracing destinations east of Area B and on and west of a line drawn through South Bend, Pine, North Liberty, Walkerton, Hamlet, and Knox, Ind., and a point just south of North Judson, Ind.] 1 Originating line; distance shown via E. J. & E. is from Plainfield. Distances and present and suggested rates to representative destinations-Continued [Destination area D.-Embracing destinations covered by complaint east and southeast of area C] 1 Originating line No. 223201 PERRINE-ARMSTRONG COMPANY v. NEW YORK CENTRAL RAILROAD COMPANY Submitted May 29, 1930. Decided November 19, 1930 1. Shipments of rough lumber, in carloads, from Waterloo, Ind., to Detroit, Mich., found undercharged. Applicable rate found unreasonable. Waiver of collection of the outstanding undercharges authorized. 2. Rates on like traffic from Bourbon, Ind., to Belding, Mich., and from Aylesworth, Ind., to Woodstock, Ontario, found not unreasonable or unduly prejudicial. Complaints dismissed. Earl W. Cox for complainants. J. L. Aber and J. W. Weist for defendants. REPORT OF THE COMMISSION DIVISION 3, COMMISSIONERS MCMANAMY, BRAINERD, AND LEF BY DIVISION 3: Exceptions were filed by complainants to the report proposed by the examiner. Our conclusions differ slightly from those recommended by him. Complainants are corporations dealing in lumber. By complaint filed May 13, 1929, in the title case it is alleged that the rate charged on seven carloads of rough lumber moving from Waterloo, Ind., to Detroit, Mich., between July 3, 1926, and March 27, 1929, was inapplicable and unreasonable. By complaints filed July 25 and 29, 1929, respectively, it is alleged in No. 22320 (Sub-No. 1), that the rate charged on like traffic from Bourbon, Ind., to Belding, Mich., since July 26, 1927, and in No. 22320 (Sub-No. 2), that the rate charged on like traffic from Aylesworth, Ind., to Woodstock, Ontario, since July 30, 1927, were and are unreasonable and unduly prejudicial. Reparation is sought on shipments moving within the statutory period and during the pendency of this proceeding, except that a lawful rate for the future is also sought from Bourbon to Belding. Rates will be stated in cents per 100 pounds. On April 23, 1928, an informal complaint was filed covering three carload shipments from Waterloo to Detroit moving between July 3, This report also embraces No. 22320 (Sub-No. 1), S. J. Peabody Lumber Company v. Pennsylvania Railroad Company et al.; and No. 22320 (Sub-No. 2), Same v. Pennsylvania Railroad Company et al. 1926, and July 6, 1927. The only issue presented was the applicability of the rate charged. The file was closed May 8, 1929. The title case herein includes these three shipments, and four additional shipments which moved on and after June 23, 1928. The complaint is barred by the statute in respect to the allegation of unreasonableness as to shipments which were delivered prior to May 14, 1927. The record clearly indicates, however, that the allegation of unreasonableness is merely perfunctory and that the gravamen of the complaint in the title case is the applicability of the charges collected. Sub-No. 1 relates specifically to four carload shipments from Bourbon to Belding moving between October 27 and November 1, 1928. Sub-No. 2 covers three carload shipments from Aylesworth to Woodstock made between March 30 and April 13, 1927, over the Pennsylvania to Buffalo, N. Y., and Canadian National beyond, 747 miles. An informal complaint was filed on December 20, 1928, alleging that the rate charged on these three shipments was unreasonable, unjustly discriminatory, and unduly prejudicial. The file was closed January 26, 1929. As previously indicated, the formal complaint was not filed until July 29, 1929, more than six months after the informal complaint was closed. See Rule III (g) of the Rules of Practice. The compliant, therefore, in respect to these particular shipments is barred by the statute, but will be considered in so far as the rate since July 30, 1927, is alleged to have been unreasonable and unduly prejudicial. The shipments from Waterloo moved over the New York Central to Detroit. Charges were collected at the sixth-class rate of 17 cents. There was contemporaneously in effect over the New York Central a commodity rate of 13 cents from Lansing, Mich., to Detroit. Complainant contends that Waterloo is intermediate to Lansing and that under the following intermediate clause the 13-cent rate was applicable from Waterloo: Except as otherwise specifically provided for herein, the rates from any station from which a rate to the destination station of the shipment is not published in this tariff, * will be the same as from the next-named station beyond on the same line. No rate was published in this tariff from Waterloo. There was, however, published in this tariff a commodity rate of 18.5 cents on rough lumber from La Porte, Ind., to Detroit. In order to determine the rate from Waterloo under the intermediate clause above quoted, it is necessary to consider first whether the "next-named station beyond on the same line " is La Porte or Lansing. The distance over the New York Central from La Porte to Waterloo is 96.2 miles. From Lansing to Waterloo the distance over this line is 106 |