Legal Document

362 U.S. 327 80 Supreme Court Reporter 737 4 United States Reports Lawyer’s Edition 2d Series KF101.8 U54 766 UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD CO., Appellant,v.UNITED STATES of America. Number 98. Argued March 23, 1960. Decided April 4, Mr. Elmer baron Collins, Omaha, Neb., for appellant. John G. Laughlin, Washington, D.C., appellee. PER CURIAM. 1 Appellant, along with other railroads, has years engaged in the 'roller lumber traffic' by performing intentionally delayed service transportation from West Coast to market. Six roads so have filed tariffs covering such services at same rate as their fast freight, and Interstate Commerce Commission now under investigation consideration. however, refused file a tariff but continues handle roller traffic on its freight. 2 The States, instance Commission, sought obtained permanent injunction restraining appellant until it publishes files same. District found that renders 14-day over route ordinarily requiring two four days. delay is accomplished holding cars sidings certain points trunk lines awaiting diversion orders move shipment forward railroad's regular service. This affords shipper additional time find market while transit. service, found, (173 F.Supp. 401) incurred 'operational problems costs' appellant, including switching, siding, storage 'per diem cost use foreign cars' not present freight included published tariff. We agree constitutes furnishing 'privileges or facilities' § 6(7) Act, 49 Code Annotated KF65 U5 6(7), and, therefore, must be KF62 6(1), 6(1). See Turner, Dennis & Lowry Lumber company versus Chicago, M. St. P.R. Co., 1926, 271 259, 262, 46 530, 531, 70 L.Ed. 934. 3 If when tariff, already done, can then consider reasonableness justness appellant's light rate, giving due regard any unjust unreasonable preferences advantages might result shippers should approved. Affirmed.

Classification Label: 7