The United States of America, Petitioner V. Lehigh Valley Railroad Company, Lehigh Valley Coal Company, Lehigh Valley Coal Sales Company, Coxe Brothers and Company, Inc., Delaware, Susquehanna and Schuylkill Railroad Company, New York and Middle Coal Field Railroad and Coal Company, The G.B. Markle Company, Girard Trust Company, Eben B. Thomas, Lyman D. Smith, Edward Tk. Stotesbury, Daniel G. Reid, Charles Steele, Abram Nesbit, George F. Baer, Edward B. Smith, William H. Moore, Edward S. Moore, William R. Butler, Henry B. Coxe, and Fred M. Kirby, Defendants: Brief for the United States
U.S. Government Printing Office, 1914 - Railroad law - 291 pages
What people are saying - Write a review
We haven't found any reviews in the usual places.
acquired advances amount annual answer anthracite coal appears bonds capital carrier cars cent charges clause Coal Sales Company collieries combination Commerce Commission commodities competing competition connection contract corporation cost course covenant Coxe Bros defendants Delaware effect evidence fact follows freight rates give Govt Grier held hold illegal independent interest Interstate Commerce Iron June lands leases Lehigh Val Lehigh Valley Coal Lehigh Valley R. R. Lehigh Valley Railroad less March markets Markle means mines monopoly Morrison named operators paid pany Pennsylvania petition points practice preferences prevent produced purchase Rail railway company rates reached Reading received record reports result road routing selling shipped shippers sizes storage plant Supreme Court tariff tenants tidewater tion tonnage tons trade transportation United Valley Coal Company Valley Coal Sales Valley Railroad Company various violation witnesses York
Page 118 - ... in respect to the transportation of any property in interstate or foreign commerce by any common carrier subject to said Act to regulate commerce and the Acts amendatory thereof whereby any such property shall by any device whatever be transported at a less rate than that named in the tariffs published and filed by such carrier, as is required by said Act to regulate commerce and the Acts amendatory thereof, or whereby any other advantage is given or discrimination is practiced.
Page 117 - ... state separately all terminal charges, storage charges, icing charges, and all other charges which the Commission may require, all privileges or facilities granted or allowed and any rules or regulations which in any wise change, affect, or determine any part or the aggregate of such aforesaid rates, fares, and charges, or the value of the service rendered to the passenger, shipper, or consignee.
Page 53 - Again, all the authorities agree that in order to vitiate a contract or combination it is not essential that its result should be a complete monopoly ; it is sufficient if it really tends to that end and to deprive the public of the advantages which flow from free competition.
Page 117 - ... nor shall any carrier charge or demand or collect or receive a greater or less or different compensation for such transportation of passengers or property, or for any service in connection therewith, between the points named in such tariffs than the rates, fares, and charges which are specified in the tariff filed and in effect at the time...
Page 175 - Ohio its published tariff of rates. This must be the case in order to give vitality to the prohibitions of the Interstate Commerce Act against the acceptance at any time by a carrier of less than its published rates. We say this because we think it obvious that such prohibitions would be rendered wholly ineffective by deciding that a carrier may avoid those prohibitions by making a contract for the sale of a commodity stipulating 'for the payment of a fixed price in the future, and thereby acquiring...
Page 117 - ... nor shall any carrier refund or remit in any manner or by any device any portion of the rates, fares, and 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 specified in such tariffs: Provided, That wherever the word 'carrier' occurs in this Act it shall be held to mean 'common carrier.
Page 230 - We then construe the statute as prohibiting a railroad company engaged in interstate commerce from transporting in such commerce articles or commodities under the following circumstances and conditions: a. When the article or commodity has been manufactured, mined or produced by a carrier or under its authority, and at the time of transportation the carrier has not in good faith before the act of transportation dissociated itself from such article or commodity; b. When the carrier owns the article...
Page 54 - That to vitiate a combination, such as the act of Congress condemns, it need not be shown that the combination, in fact, results or will result in a total suppression of trade or in a complete monopoly, but it is only essential to show that by its necessary operation it tends to restrain interstate or international trade or commerce or tends to create a monopoly in such trade or commerce and to deprive the public of the advantages that flow from free competition...
Page 270 - ... commodity is adequate to pay the published freight rate and something over, the command of the statute as to adherence to the published rates is complied with, because the price will be imputed to the freight rate, and the loss, if any, attributed to the company in its capacity as dealer and not as a carrier. This simply asserts the proposition which we have disposed of, that a carrier possesses the power, by the form in which he deals, to render the prohibitions of the act ineffective, since...