Baltimore and Ohio R.R. Co. v. United States, 201 F. 2d 795 Barr v. United States, 324 U.S. 83. Page 192 589 276, 277 609 542 674 674 163 349, 692, 693, 694, 695 Bartel Common Carrier Application, 7 MCC 755. Bloomfield S.S. Co.-Subsidy, Routes 13(1), 21(5), 4 FMB 305. Bloomfield S.S. Co.-Subsidy, Route 15B, 3 USMC 299. Cargo to Adriatic, Black Sea, and Levant Ports, 2 USMC 342 . . City of Mobile v. Baltimore Insular Line, Inc., 2 USMC 474.. 19, 20 674 538, 539 607 301, 302 674 174, 212 135 211 211 200, 601 208, 634, 635, 636 378, 609 Coastwise Line, 4 FMB 114, 126. Coastwise Line, 4 FMB 173.. Coastwise Line, 4 FMB 200. Coastwise Line, 4 FMB 211. Consolidated Edison Co. v. National Labor Relations Board, 305 U.S. 197__ Consolo, Philip R. v. Grace Line Inc., 4 FMB 293.. Contract Rates-Japan/Atlantic-Gulf Freight Conference, 4 FMB 706__ 746, 761, 762, 765, 767, 770 Contract Rates-North Atlantic Continental Freight Conf., 4 FMB 98__ 357, Contract Rates-North Atlantic Continental Freight Conf., 4 FMB 355. 368, 727 Davidson Extension-Specified Commodities, 51 MCC 401. Eden Mining Co. v. Bluefields Fruit & S.S. Co., 1 USSB 41. 514, 540, 608, 720, 721, 722, 733 Everett Ch. of Comm. v. Luckenbach S.S. Co., 1 USSB 149.. 674 721, 722 Far East Conf. v. United States, 342 U.S. 570. - 728 644 Federal Maritime Board v. United States, 345 U.S. 975. Grace Line Inc.-Subsidy, Route 2, Review of, 4 FMB 40. Page 57, 59, 61, 70, 72, 73, 119, 122, 526, 527, 534 Grace Line Inc.-Subsidy, Route 4, 3 FMB 731. 462, 496, 551, 572, 693 783 724, 734 609 Fulf Intercoastal Contract Rates, 1 USSBB 524_ 302 H. Kramer & Co. v. Inland Waterways Corp., 1 USMC 630 205, 347, 514, 540, 608 Huber Mfg. Co. v. N. V. Stoomvaart Maatschappij "Nederland”, 4 FMB 343. Hubert v. Public Service Commission, 118 Pa. Super. 128. Ilwaco Ry. & Navig. Co. v. Oregon Short Line & I.U.N. Ry. 57 Fed. 673_ 540, 608 302 542 738 Intercoastal Investigation, 1935, 1 USSBB 400.. 537-540, 723, 724 538 732 635 137 773 Interstate Commerce Commission v. Baird, 194 U.S. 25. Interstate Commerce Commission v. Jersey City, 322 U.S. 503Isbrandtsen Co., Inc. v. American Export Lines Inc., 4 FMB-MA 442___ Isbrandtsen Co., Inc. v. North Atlantic Continental Freight Conf., 3 FMB 235.... 100, 101, 356, 367, 368, 726, 734 Isbrandtsen Co., Inc. v. United States, 81 F. Supp. 544 100, 726 Isbrandtsen Co., Inc. v. United States, 96 F. Supp. 883.. 100, 105, 357, 370, 726 Isbrandtsen Co., Inc. v. United States, 211 F. 2d 51.. 701, 702, 703, 708, 728, 742, 751 Isthmian S.S. Co. v. United States, 53 F. 2d 251. 538, 539 208 514 L & A Garcia & Co., Rates, Charges and Practices of, 2 USMC 615_ 538 527 Little Rock & M. R. Co. v. East Tennessee, V. & G. R. Co., 47 Fed. 771. 542 703 609 Lykes Bros. S.S. Co., Inc.-Emergency Intercoastal Operation, 3 441 Lykes Bros. S.S. Co., Inc.-Increased Sailings, Route 22, 4 FMB 153. Mississippi Valley Hardwood Co. v. McClanahan, 8 F. Supp. 388. 526 635 National Labor Relations Board v. Thompson Products, 97 F. 2d 13. 635 635 New York v. United States, 331 U.S. 284. 734 Page 301, 378 New York Marine Co. v. Buffalo Barge Towing Corp., 2 USMC 216 Pacific Coast European Conf., 3 USMC 11.. 19 601 725, 726 57, 136, 158 Pacific Transport Lines, Inc.-Subsidy, Route 29, 4 FMB 7... Philip R. Consolo v. Grace Line Inc., 4 FMB 293 169 137 192 303 164, 725 197, 205, 347, 514 Phipps v. London and North Western Ry. Co., [1892] 2 QB 229. 378, 609 542 635 346 209, 674 Port of New York Authority v. Ab Svenska, 4 FMB 202.. 347, 496 Port of Philadelphia Ocean Traffic Bureau v. Export S. S. Corp., 1 USSBB 538 - Rates, Charges, and Practices of L. & A. Garcia and Co., 2 USMC 615. . Rates, Charges, and Practices of Yamashita and O. S. K., 2 USMC 14... 538 538, 539, 543 485, 637 133, 139 174, 212 57, 59, 61, Rates from Japan to United States, 2 USMC 426.. 70, 72, 73, 119, 122, 526, 527, 534 Richard v. Credit Suisse, 242 N.Y. 346, 152 N.E. 110. 513 702 Rochester Telephone Corp. v. United States, 307 U.S. 125__ Sigfried Olsen v. Blue Star Line, Ltd., 2 USMC 529.. 164 Southern Pacific Terminal Co. v. Interstate Commerce Commission, 219 U.S. 498... 301 Sprague S.S. Agency, Inc. v. A/S Ivarans Rederi, 2 USMC 72_ 164 705 Swayne & Hoyt, Ltd. v. United States, 18 F. Supp. 25. 724 369, 370, 724, 725, 726, 729, 734, 735, 741, 763, 768, 769 Terminal Rate Increases-Puget Sound Ports, 3 USMC 21. 391-394 393, 394 541 Texas & Pacific Ry. Co. v. United States, 289 U.S. 627. Titania, The, 131 Fed. 229_. Transportation By Mendez & Co., Inc., Between U.S. and Puerto Rico, 2 Turret Crown, The, 284 Fed. 434 Union Sulphur Co. Contract Carrier Application, 260 ICC 749- United States v. California, 297 U.S. 175.. United States v. Eaton, 169 U.S. 331.. United States v. Far East Conf., 94 F. Supp. 900. United States v. Illinois Central R.R., 303 U.S. 239 United States v. The Meachem, 107 F. Supp. 997- United States v. Watkins, 73 F. Supp. 216.. United States v. Wells-Fargo Express Co., 161 Fed. 606 Page 732 196 301, 302, 303, 378 34 301 347, 540, 608 378 105 728 485 189 65 635 735 722 104, 722 6, United States Navigation Co. v. Cunard S.S. Co., 39 F. 2d 204-- U.S. Lines Co.-Subsidy, Route 8, 3 FMB 713.. Willapoint Oysters v. Ewing, 174 F. 2d 676.. W. T. Rawleigh Co. v. N. V. Stoomvaart, 1 USSB 285.. 15, 693 54, 492 513 302 301 704 104 300, 378 635 370, 722, 723 538, 539, 543 Yamashita and O.S.K., Rates, Charges, and Practices of, 2 USMC 14.. FEDERAL MARITIME BOARD No. 696 FELDMAN FAMILY, CLOTHING EXPORT & SHIPPING CORPORATION v. PETER BOGATY ET AL.1 Submitted January 30, 1952. Decided April 2, 1952 Judgment and other documents in a litigated New York case between the parties not involving the Shipping Act, 1916, as amended, irrelevant and inadmissible on complaint charging violation of sections 17 and 20 of the Act. No other evidence in support of the complaint being offered, the complaint is dismissed for lack of proof. Jack Wasserman and Benjamin Barondess for complainant. Louis Levin for respondent. BY THE BOARD: REPORT OF THE BOARD The original complaint in this proceeding, filed on March 13, 1950, and the amended complaint, filed on November 20, 1950, named Peter Bogaty and Hudson Shipping Co., Inc., respondents. Both complaints against Hudson Shipping Co., Inc., were dismissed by separate orders of the Board, dated November 2, 1950, and January 25, 1951. The proceeding continued against Peter Bogaty. The complaint, as amended, alleged that complainant was a freight forwarder doing business in New York City; that respondent Bogaty was also a freight forwarder subject to the Shipping Act, 1916, as amended (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"); and that complainant in 1949 shipped to respondent in Poland over 2,000 gift packages which complainant had received through travel agents and other persons in the United States for delivery to various consignees throughout Poland. The complaint charged (1) that respondent refused and neglected to 1 Hudson Shipping Co., Inc. |