CUTTING v; FLORIDA RY. &: NAV. CO.
and facts in the case, to be pointed out ore tenus at the hearing of these exceptions. They do not comply with the rule in equity with reference to exceptions of this character. Exceptions to the master's report are regarded so far only as they are supported by the statement of the master, or by to which the attention of the court is called by reference to thft particular testimony. Jaffrey v. Brown, 29 Fed. Rep. 476, and caseS there cited; Taylor .'Ifanuf'9 Co. v. Hatcher Manuf'9 00.,39 Fed. Rep. 440. The exceptions make no allusion to the evidence, whereas they should have set out that portion of the evidence upon which the exceptor relied. This, however, involves no testimony, and the only reference to it by the. master, unsupported, was probably not deemed advisable by the flolicitor for the petitioner. We are, as a consequence, limited in our consideration of the case exclusively to the master's report; anrl,since all the presumptions are in 1avor of the finding of the master, and since they appear to be satisfactory, and indeed conclusive, it is ordered and adjudged that the master's report recommending that the prayer of petitioner be denied shall stand confirmed, at the costs of petitioner, and that a decree be framed accordinjl;lv.
CtrrmrG II. FLORIDA
et al., Intervenors.)
COircUtt Court, W. D. FWrlda. AUKUSt, 1890.)
C.ummRS-:-DTR01tIMINATJON IN CHARGES-RECETVER.
The receiver of a railroad in Florida, where discrimination in freight rates Is a criminal oft'ense, (Act FIll. Jan. 6, 1855, c. 15tl4,> has no right to make such discrimination. Following Missouri Pac. By. Co. v. Te:taB &: P. By. Co., 81 Fed. Rep.1l62;
H. BiJJbee, for intervenors. John A. Henderwn, for respondent.
Petition in intervention.
SPEER, J. This case arises on a charge of the petitioners, who own and operate a line of steam-ships between New York and Fernandina, that the respondent, who is the receiver of this court in charge of' the property of the Florida Railway & Navigation Company, which is a line of road extending west and south to various parts.of Florida, unjustly discriminated in the carriage of freights and passengers over its lines against the .petitioners, and in favor of another and rival line of stellm- \ ships, to-wit, the Clyde Line, between the same ports of New York and Fernandina. The are that the· respondent (1) n1akes. through bills of at special rates with the Clyde Line,and rftfuses to makesarnewithpetitioners' line, an,d carries out these contracts tothe . injury of the petitioners; (2) that respondent charges over his road, on alJ freigl1tS: a:nd passengers carried by petitioners' steamers. 1'u1110cal tariff·
from. Ferna.ndina to the local stations on his line, and on such as are sent or received in like manner by the Clyde Line he prorates in such manner that shipPQrB and passengers pay the railroad less than on similar business via the petitioners' line, to the manifest injury of petitioners i (3) that respondent exacts frpm petitioners on their business prepayment of freight and does not'make the same exactions from the Clyde Line, which places the petitioners at a disadvantage with the business community. The respondent admits the facts to be as charged, but justifies them on the ground that thefacilities offered by petitioners were not of that satisfactory character, either in permanency or quality of service, which met the emergencies of his railroad in iits active competition with a rival road and rival ocean steam-ships, alld that the acts complained of were necessary to be done in order to inaugurate and maintain the efficient service of the line complained against. The acts complained of terminated with the enforcement of the interstate commerce 8.ct, and the present hearing is on petition for an order on the recei"ver to pay over to petitioners the difference in thtl amounts collected by reon freights and passengers; etc., over the charges for like services on business via the Clyde Line, while such rates were in fbrce. The intervention was referred to the master, the Honorable Joseph H. Durkee, to take and state an account between the petitioner and the receiver, the court all questions of law and equity. This master filed his report, which is as follows: "The petitioner owns and operates a line of steam-ships between the ports of-Fernandina and New York, and the intermediate ports of Port Royal and Brunswick. whiclutre engaged in general freight and passenger business. These steamers made connection at Fernandina with the line of railroad now operated b,)' the respondent, and through bills of lading, through passenger tickets. and baggage checks were used interchangeably on these lines. In November, 1886, W. P. Clyde Co, established a line of steamers from New York to Fernandina and to Jacksonville, and with the respondent, as receiver of the Florida Railway &; Navigation Company, made contracts as his oon necting line. Thereafter the petitioner complains that the said receiver, through his agents, issued instruetions on February 12, 1887. that on and after the 18th of that month full local rates would be demanded upon all freights delivered by petitioner to receiver at Fernandina for points in the interior of Florida, or from such points to Fernandina; and that on the same day the rMeiver caused freight rate N0.4,551 to be issued, whereby petitiuner or shipper was compelled to pay 8 cents ,per cubic foot to respondent's line of railr9M upon cedar from Cedar Keys to New York, leaving but 2 cents per cubic foot for petitioner, the through rate being 10 cents per cubic foot, while prior to that time the division of rates gave to the petitioner 7 cents per cubic foot on log cedar and 5 cents per cubic foot on box cedar, and to the respondfmt 3 cents per cubic foot on eUt:h of the above classes. On the 15th day of February, 1887,the respondent caused freight rate No.4, 567 to be issued, to take effect on the 18th day of the same month,noted "Applicable only to Mallory Line," wbile retaining totals of through rates, gave to the respondent's line of railroad a greater proportion Qfsllch rate'S than had been hitherto charged on through business via Mallory Line. On February 24, 1887, the respondent caused instructions to be given to his agents not to issue any bills of lading inconllection with any steam-sbipsotber than the Clyde Line. and steamin connection with said J.;ailroad to Brunswick and Savannah,