Laurel Cotton Mills v. Gulf & Ship Island Railroad

Citations

• 84 Miss. 339

Syllabus

<p>1. Interstate Commerce. Intrastate shipments. Agreement as to rates. Discrimination. Code 1892, \\\\ 4287, 4290.</p> <p>A contract by a railroad company to maintain rates from a factory, not exceeding to competitive points the rates from other factory towns, is not on its face void for discrimination, under the Interstate Commerce Act of February 4, 1887, 24 Statutes 'at Large, 379; nor Code 1892, §§4287, 4290.</p> <p>2. Same. Milling in transit.</p> <p>A contract by a railroad company to credit to freight charges on manufactured goods any freight received on raw material shipped to the factory, is a milling-in-transit agreement, and does not violate the statutes mentioned above.</p> <p>3. Same. Code 1892, ? 4292.</p> <p>The Interstate Commerce Act, sec. 6, and Code 1892, § 4292, providing for the publication by railroads of schedules of rates and forbidding deviations therefrom, do not render invalid a contract by a railroad company to charge no greater rate from a factory to competitive points than is charged from other places, nor prohibit the maintaining of a milling-in-transit agreement, in the absence of any showing that the rates fixed by. the contract were different from the approved rates, or that any schedule of rates had been submitted to the commission at all before the contract was made.</p> <p>4. Same. Approval of rates. Burden of proof.</p> <p>The burden is not on the plaintiff to show, in a suit against a railroad for breach of contract to transport freight at a specified rate, that the contracted rate had been filed with the Interstate Commerce Commission or approved by the State Railroad Commission, as required by the Interstate Commerce Act, and Code 1892, § 4292.</p>