The transformer cases were shipped from Mayville from December 5, 1939, to July 24, 1942, over (1) the Yellow Truck Lines and (2) the Wolf Truck Lines to Chicago, Ill.; and from Milwaukee, they were shipped from June 23, 1941, to December 16, 1942, inclusive, over the Webber Cartage Line to Chicago. Beyond Chicago, all of the shipments were transported by Hinchcliff. The defendants' first-, second-, and third-class rates in effect when the shipments moved are set forth in the following table.

The freight charges were collected by Hinchcliff from the complainants, generally on the basis of the first-class rates. Hinchcliff has retained the money, and he will voluntarily refund the overcharges, if any, in accordance with our determination of this proceeding. The question of reparation is not here involved. It may be noted, however, that we are without power under the provisions of the act relating to motor carriers to award reparation, but we have authority to determine the applicability of rates charged in the past.

The transformer cases of the complainant are cylindrical, made of sheet steel, and from 36 to 72 inches in height. The bills of lading described the articles as transformer cases. The cases were shipped to Zanesville loose, and without covers or bushings. These cases were designed especially to contain transformer cores. coils, and other transformer parts, and, at Zanesville, they were used in the construction of complete weathertight transformers. There is no dispute among the parties that the case shipped by complainant was a transformer part.

In the successive governing classifications, under respective headings "ELECTRICAL APPLIANCES," "ELECTRICAL APPLIANCES OR EQUIPMENT AND PARTS," and "ELECTRICAL APPLIANCES OR EQUIPMENT, OR PARTS NAMED," transformer cases, in less than truckloads, were rated first class, when loose or on skids, and second class when in boxes or crates. Effective October 1, 1941, the description "Transformer Parts. N. O. I. [not otherwise indexed by name]" was added to the classification. A rat

ing of second class was provided on "Transformer Parts, N. O. I.," under the last two headings, respectively, when the articles were shipped in less than truckloads in boxes or crates, or loose, "bushings protected by semi-crate, or on skids." The applicable exceptions to the classification contained a third-class rating on a list of approximately 23 articles, including "Transformer Parts." under the heading “ELECTRICAL APPLIANCES, Viz,". In the appendix hereof is a reproduction of the exceptions item as it appeared in a tariff of Hinchcliff. Reissues of this item in the tariffs of the Central States Motor Freight Bureau were substantially similar.

The complainant contends that its shipments were subject to the third-class rating in the exceptions to the classification. The description "Transformer Parts" in the exceptions, it urges, had the effect of removing the description "transformer cases" from the classification. It relies on Norwich Wire Works, Inc., v. Boston & M. R., 232 I. C. C. 593, 595, where the Commission said:

The sound rule is that when an article is clearly embraced in a general description in an exception, the rate provided in that exception is applicable, although there may be a more specific description in the classification. The true function of an exception is to remove articles from the classification and establish class rates thereon different from the normal class rates. The commodity descriptions in exceptions are of necessity frequently broader and more general than in the classification, especially when the exception covers a number of articles of the same general character which are separately rated in the classsification. Were the rule otherwise, it would be necessary to reproduce the exact wording of the classification or make the description of every article intended to be covered by the exception clearer than the description in the classification and probably more lengthy.

The defendants urge that the first-class rating in the classification was properly applied. They contend that the description in the exceptions applied only on transformer parts which were not specifically shown in the classification. To support this contention, they argue that many of the other descriptions of the articles in the list of commodities in the exceptions to the classification were taken from the classification, and if it were intended to include transformer cases that description would have been specifically shown in the exceptions. The intention of the tariff framer is not controlling.

The defendants cite the Commission's report in Indian Refining Co. v. Cleveland, C., C. & St. L. Ry. Co., 222 I. C. C. 409, in support of their interpretation of the tariffs. That proceeding presented the question of whether ratings in the exceptions to the classification and commodity rates on "chemicals" superseded the specific ratings on certain articles in the classification, which therein were not described as "chemicals." The Commission found:

that the exceptions tariff and commodity tariffs which contained the word "chemicals" should, in the light of the evidence before us, be construed as a

limitation, i. e., applying only to such chemicals as were not specifically rated in the classification.

This principle was followed in a number of other proceedings. In S. S. Steiner, Inc., v. Northern Pac. Ry. Co., 229 I. C. C. 143, it was found that a commodity rate on "Flowers, Herbs, Leaves, medicinal, dried," did not remove from the classification a specific rating on "hops"; in S. S. Steiner, Inc., v. Alton & S. R., 229 I. C. C. 407, the same conclusion was reached in respect of essentially similar facts; in Butler Bros. v. Baltimore & O. R. Co., 231 I. C. C. 618, it was found that a commodity-tariff description "knit goods" did not supersede the specific classification description "hosiery"; and in Lufkin Rule Co. v. Atchison, T. & S. F. Ry. Co., 243 I. C. C. 285 and 253 I. C. C. 224, commodity rates on "mechanics tools" were found inapplicable on tape measures, which were specifically rated in the classification.

In Indian Refining Co. v. Cleveland, C., C. & St. L. Ry. Co., supra, and the other cited proceedings which followed the principle stated therein, the commodity descriptions in the tariffs and exceptions were read in the light of the descriptions in the classification. As between general descriptions in tariffs or exceptions and specific descriptions in the classification, the latter were found to be applicable, because the general descriptions in the tariffs or exceptions, on the one hand, and the specific classification descriptions, on the other, were not coordinate descriptions. In the described circumstances and from the standpoint of rate making, the classification descriptions were found to be controlling.

Where, however, the items in the tariff or exceptions and the items in the classification are coordinate items, those in the tariff or exceptions remove the corresponding items from the classification, and this is so even when the items in the classification are more specific. In Norwich Wire Works, Inc., v. Boston & M. R., supra, the Commission found that the rating in the exceptions to the classification on steel sheet applied on perforated sheet steel and removed the classification. rating on perforated sheet steel. The defendants therein contended that since perforated sheet steel was specifically rated in the classification, the broader description of steel sheet in the exceptions did not apply. This contention was rejected. The classification listed plain sheet and perforated sheet steel under the same subheadings, and in the classification and exceptions the respective descriptions were shown in the list of iron and steel articles. These were coordinate items, and the exceptions were found applicable. Under essentially similar facts. like conclusions were reached in Hobart Mfg. Co. v. Baltimore & O. R. Co., 241 I. C. C. 711, and Cross Engineering Co. v. Ann Arbor R. Co., 241 I. C. C. 48.

In Animal Trap Co. of America v. Erie R. Co., 243 I. C. C. 171, the question was whether the classification rating or the rating in the exceptions applied on strip steel when copper-coated by the electrolytic process. In the classification, specific ratings were provided on "Strip Steel, n. o. i. b. n.," and on "Plate, Sheet, or Strip, Copper, Brass, or Bronze coated by electrolytic or hot dipped process," under the general heading of "Iron and Steel." In the exceptions, in the list of iron and steel articles, a rating was provided on "Strip Iron or Steel." The defendants contended that the exception was not applicable on complainant's shipments because strip steel, copper-coated by the electrolytic process, was specifically rated in the classification. This contention was not sustained. In its report, division 3 said:

In this instance both items of the classification under consideration, namely, the item covering copper-coated strip steel and the one applying on strip steel, n. o. i. b. n., are both listed under the general caption of “Iron or Steel." Such action on the part of the carriers stamps the two articles for classification and rate-making purposes as coming within the generic description of iron or steel. The classification exception embodied this idea in its description of the article or articles which it sought to remove from the classification. In these circumstances, the principle above quoted from the Norwich Wire Works case is clearly applicable. Having treated the copper-coated strip steel as an iron or steel article, defendants should have employed clearer and more explicit language in their exceptions if they intended to exclude it from such relationship in the exceptions.

In the instant proceeding, the classifications included transformer cases under the heading "ELECTRICAL APPLIANCES." This must be considered as showing that the defendants recognized transformer cases as electrical appliances for rate-making purposes. In the applicable exceptions, transformer parts, which include transformer cases, were also shown under the caption "ELECTRICAL APPLIANCES." The defendants having recognized transformer parts as coming within the description of electrical appliances, they should have employed appropriate restrictions in the exceptions if they intended to exclude from the exception ratings any particular kind of transformer parts, as here, transformer cases. The principle in the Norwich Wire Works case is controlling here. We conclude that the exception rating had the effect of removing the application of the classification rating on the shipments of transformer cases. We believe that the number of disputes between shippers and carriers concerning the applicability of classification-exceptions ratings should be minimized, if not entirely eliminated, by a change in the method of describing the articles on which the exceptions ratings are intended to apply. In the report in the Norwich Wire Works case, reference was made to the practice of including descrip

tions in the exceptions broader and more general than in the classifica. tion. The other courses, as pointed out in that report, are to reproduce the exact wording of the classification or make the description of every article intended to be covered by the exception clearer than the description in the classification and probably more lengthy. We believe the course to be followed is to reproduce the exact wording of the classification. This might add to the length of the present exceptions descriptions, but it would remove much of the doubt at present existing, as in the instant proceeding, concerning the application of the classification and exceptions ratings.

We find that the rates charged were inapplicable, and that the applicable less-than-truckload rates on transformer cases, loose, from Mayville and Milwaukee, Wis., to Zanesville, Ohio, over the lines of the defendants were the third-class rates herein before described. The complaint will be dismissed.

COMMISSIONER AITCHISON Concurs in the result.

APPENDIX

From tariff MF-1. C. C. No. 4, supplement 12, of W. H. Hinchcliff, Jr., doing business as Hinchcliff Motor Service

EXCEPTIONS TO NATIONAL MOTOR FREIGHT CLASSIFICATION NO. 4