US SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

Premises occupied and used by a common carrier as a depot or freight station may become such through contract with the owners, and not necessarily by lease or purchase.

The fact that the carrier leases a terminal from a shipper near that shipper's establishments does not, in the absence of any fraudulent intent, import a discrimination in favor of that shipper where the chanrobles.com-red

Page 231 U. S. 275

station is actually used for the benefit alike of all shippers in that neighborhood.

A carrier may compensate a shipper for services rendered and instrumentalities furnished in connection with its own shipments, and if the amount is reasonable, it is not a prohibited rebate or discrimination even if the carrier does not allow other shippers to render and furnish similar services and instrumentalities and compensate them therefor.

Because a contract for terminal facilities contemplates and provides for the publication of joint tariffs does not make the owners of the terminal common carriers if no joint tariffs are ever filed or published.

Where the Interstate Commerce Commission held payments for shippers' services rendered and facilities furnished to be discriminatory only insofar as similar payments for similar services are not paid to other shippers, other questions as to the legality of such payments which were not passed on by the Commission or the Commerce Court are not properly before this Court, and will not be passed on.

Quaere, and not now discussed or decided, whether a shipper furnishing lighterage service within lighterage limits for a part of the rate becomes a common carrier, and debarred from transporting his own goods under the commodity clause of the Act to Regulate Commerce.

A shipper may be under disadvantages in regard to his shipments by a common carrier by reason of his disadvantageous location.

200 F.7d 9 affirmed.

The facts, which involve the legality of an order made by the Interstate Commerce Commission regarding certain allowances made by railroad carriers to shippers and determination of whether such allowances constituted illegal preferences or discriminations in violation of the Act to Regulate Commerce, are stated in the opinion. chanrobles.com-red

Page 231 U. S. 280