R. Co., 17 I. C. C. 218.
Lower rates on carload lots than on less quantities are not unlawful ; but if the dif ference be so wide as to destroy competi tion between large and small dealers, es pecially upon articles that are of general and necessary use, and that furnish a large vol ume of business, the act is violated; Thurber v. R. Co., 2 I. C. Rep. 742.
When an article moves in sufficient vol ume and the demands of commerce will be better served, it is reasonable to give a lower classification for carloads than that which applies to less than carload quantities, but the difference in such classification should not be so wide as to be destructive to com petition between large and small dealers; Brownell v. R. Co., 4 I. C. Rep. 285.
It is the duty of a carrier to equip its road with suitable cars for its traffic and to fur nish them alike to all who have occasion for their use ; Rice, Robinson & Witherop v. R. Co., 3 I. C. Rep. 162. The public must be justly and equally served in furnishing cars ; if in a time of special pressure, some one must wait, regular customers of the road are not entitled to preference ; Riddle, Dean & Co. v. R. Co., 1 I. C. Rep. 787.
As a general rule, in the movement of pas sengers and freight, passengers get a prefer ence, then live stock, perishable goods and common freight receive preference in the order named. This rule is of no avail in time of an emergency.
Railroad companies are not required to furnish competing connecting carriers with equal facilities, for the interchange of traf fic, when this involves the use of its tracks by such carriers ; it may permit such use by one carrier to the exclusion of others ; Lit tle Rock & M. R. Co. v. R. Co., 59 Fed. 400; nor is the clause violated by receiving and forwarding without piepayment of freight or car mileage, cars of other companies, con taining goods coming from one locality and under like circumstances, refusing goods from a different locality ; Oregon Short-Line & IL N. R. Co. v. R. Co., 61 Fed. 158, 9 C. C. A. 409.
A state constitution prohibiting discrim ination in charges and facilities does not re quire a company to make provision for joint business with a new line crossing it, similar to those already made with a rival line at another near point ; Atchison, T. & S. F. R. Co. v. R. Co., 110 U. S. 667, 4 Sup. Ct. 185, 28 L. Ed. 291; but railroad companies may be required to furnish facilities, and pre vented from abandoning, stations already es tablished ; State v. R. Co., 37 Conn. 153 ; New Haven & N. R. Co. v. Hamersley, 104 U. S. 1, 26 L. Ed. 629 ; R. R. Commissioners v. R. Co., 63 Me. 269, 18 Am. Rep. 208; Commonwealth v. R. Co., 103 Mass. 254, 4 Am. Rep. 555;
State v. R. Co., 19 Neb. 476, 27 N. W. 434.
The power of the Commission to regulate accessorial facilities is held to be confined to mere regulation, and cannot be used to invade rights of property by entering the domain of deprivation, construction, and re construction of properties to carry out the proposed regulations ; Detroit, G. H. & M. R. Co. v. Interstate Commerce Commission, 74 Fed. 803, 21 C. C. A. 103.
A carrier Is not justified in 'refusing less desirable freights because more money can be made by using its cars in carrying another kind; Riddle, Dean & Co. v, R. Co., 1 I. C. Rep. 787.
In an action for unjust discrimination in freight charges, under sec. 2, it is sufficient to set out the rates charged plaintiff and an other shipper, and the circumstances and conditions under which plaintiff's shipment was made, with an allegation that the small er charges made the other shipper were for like services, under substantially the same circumstances and conditions, without set ting out such circumstances and conditions; Kinnavey v. R. Ass'n, 81 Fed. 802.
It is the duty of a carrier of live stock to provide proper facilities for receiving and discharging live stock free from all charges except the regular transportation charges ; and it cannot receive and discharge such live stock at a depot, access to which must be purchased ; Keith v. R. Co., 1 I. C. Rep. 601.
Carriers may properly refuse refrigeration on less than carload shipments or may re quire twenty-four hours' advance notice by shippers of the need of refrigerator car'S; they may also charge for refrigeration on cars iced by them and not loaded by the ship per ; Asparagus Growers' Ass'n v. R. Co., 17 I. C. C: 423.
In enacting the Hepburn act, amending § 20 of the act to regulate commerce, Con gress recognized the essential distinctions be tween property accounts and operating ac counts, and between capital and earnings and while prior to that time the practice of dif ferent carriers varied, uniformity in regard to the keeping of accounts was essential in the future for proper supervision and regu lation; Kansas City Ry. Co. v. U. S., 231 U. S. 423, 34 Sup. Ct. 125, 58 L. Ed.
The Hepburn act, requiring pipe line com panies to become common carriers and sub ject to the act is not unconstitutional; Pipe Line Cases, 234 U. S. 548, 34 Sup. Ct. 956, 58 L. Ed. —.
The Act of 1887, and its amendment (Act of 1906), do not apply to street railway com panies operating lines between cities in dif ferent states; Omaha & C. B. St. R. Co. v. Commission, 179 Fed. 243, affirmed Omaha & C. B. St. R. Co. v. Interst. Com. Com'n, 230 U. S. 324, 33 Sup. Ct. 890, 57 L. Ed. 1501,