upr000329 147

that the s e lle r of the coal may stipu late that the buyer sh a ll take i t at %km so -called mine weight®® The Commission hm ruled, on this subject an follows s» "Where the rewei&ning shew# le ss than the origin al weight, no change should bo made in the weight or charges that would result in charges lose than upon tne t a r i f f minimum provided fo r that oar* ........................... * In th is case complainant te s t ifie d that he paid the mine* only fo r the s o d shown by the reweighing, no matter what the b ille d weights of mine weights might be* • * • - • « . . • • • • • • . • . • Whatever the custom between the complainant and M e consignors any be, i t ©an have no bearing upon the re&aonablsnesa of a c a rrie r's reweigh* ing regulations, The amount of coal which the consignor requires the con­signee to pay fo r is a natter of contract not necessarily affected by a reweighing regulation*. Bice v* Ga*B*K,Co.,14 X.C»C* 75, *Th@ fee tern Weighing Association is a branch of the inspection bu­reau, and it s purpose i» to check the weights upon carload shipments* TheoreticalXy, a l l carloads which move a t the carload rate should be weighed at some point during their transit j but arrangement is often made with the shipper by which the shipper becomes, as it was said, a member of the weighing bureau, in which event he is provided with a stamp which he can p l»ce upon the shipping tick et, and which en title s the t r a ffic to go forward ia the f i r s t instance at the shipper's weight* The shipper agrees, upon becoming a member of the association, that his books and papers.*shall be at a l l times open to the inspection of the agents of the weighing bureau, and the bureau re lie s upon it s a b ilit y to detect fraud from such inspection* At the time of these shipments, i f a mine belonged to the weighing bureau it s cars were not supposed to be weighed en route, but mine weights were accepted* I f , however, the m ine was not a member o f the weighing association, a l l it s cars were supposed to be weighed, and *fc ould have been weighed, at some point in tra n s it. It was therefore the duty of these defendants, both upon their t a r if f s and upon the method of proce­dure then in vogue, to weigh these two cars at some point* The defendants claimed that notwithstending this i t was th eir custom even then to accept, in actual practice, mine weights, and that they only weighed occasional cars fo r the purpose of ascertaining, in a gen­eral way, whether these mine weights were substantially correct} that in case of variance between the mine weight and the track weight the mine weight warn accepted* Upon the other hand complainant te stifie d that min* weights were frequently raised so that he paid upon freigh t upon a greater quantity of coal than his b i l l from the mine called for* • * * • • • • * We think that the track weights of the defendant should determine the actual weight o f these shipments, and that the complainant is en titled to a refund upon that basis. The difference between the actual weight of the two shipments and the weight upon which the complainant has paid is 17,500 pounds, amounting to an overcharge of #17.50, fo r the repayment of which an order w ill issue** Leonard v. M*K*& T#Ry*Co*,XB I*G *G .,558 See also Topeka Banana pearlers* Ass'n v, St«L,& S . F . h . h . ,et a l, 13 X*G*G*, 6<2Q j M »0 xtomona &o«Co* v • Vandalia ii.Co* ,13 I.C»C*115*