UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT DECISIONS ON-LINE

1. A carrier by water need not file with the Interstate Commerce Commission its tariffs on interstate shipments initiated by rail if the rail and water carriage, though practically continuous, is not under a common control or management, or pursuant to a common arrangement between the rail and water carriers. Interstate Commerce Act, § 6(1)(a). P. 283 U. S. 46.

2. A common arrangement is not to be inferred from circumstances which are consistent with the independence permitted water carriers by the statute. P. 283 U. S. 47.

3. A "common arrangement" did not exist in this case, where the water carrier, although it advised rail carriers of the sailings of its ships, of the place where goods would be received, and of its charges for water transportation, and although it paid the rail charges on goods received and collected them, with its own charges, from ultimate consignees, nevertheless maintained the independence of its own transportation by having its separate rates, its separate contracts for transportation, and its direct instructions from shippers. Id. clubjuris

Page 283 U. S. 44

4. The water carrier did not bring about a "common arrangement" with connecting rail carrier by publishing to railroad and shippers the method and terms of its services. P. 283 U. S. 48.

37 F.2d 681 affirmed.

Certiorari, 281 U.S. 715, to review a judgment of the circuit court of appeals which affirmed a judgment of the district court refusing a writ of mandamus sought by the government at the request of the Interstate Commerce Commission to compel the steamship company to file schedules of rates.