574 INDEX. INSURANCI? Reinsurance hen a well known meaning, a?d, ?a the u?ual compact of re- insurance hen been understood in the cemmerelal world for many yea?, the tinbility of the reinsurer is not affected by the insolvency of the ?- insured cempany cr by the inability o! the I?tter to fulfill ita own con- tracts with the original insured; and in this caec the compact, notwith- standing it refers to io?sec paid, will be construed to cever loasec payable by the reinsured company; and, in a suit b.y the receiver of tlmt coml?my on the cempact, the fact of its insolvency and non-payment of the r/sk reinsul?d doce not constitute a defense. Allemansia lnsunznc? Co. v. Firzrnen's Inzuranc? Co., 326. INTEREST. ?,?g? CONSTITUTIONAL LAw, 5, 12. INTERNATIONAL LAW. Adoption of ? ? gore?'nmental pou?er? a?ecting its character ns a tort. The ceurtz will not declare an act to he z to?t in violation of the law of antions or of a treaty of the United States when the Executive, Congeese and the treaty-making power have all adopted it. O'P, eilly d? Camara v. Br0ok?, 45. INTERSTATE COMMERCE. .' 1. Discrimination in rate?; term "der. ice" defined. A device to obtain rebates tb' he within the prohibition of the lnteret?to Commerce Ac? of March 2, 1889, 25 Stat. 857, and tile Elkins Act of February 19, 1903, 32 Slat. 847, need not neees?trily be fraudulent. The term "device" a,s used in those statutes includes nny plan or con- trivance whereby merchandise is transported for less than the published r?te, or any other advantage is given to, or discrimination practiced in favor of, the shipper. Armour Packin? Co. v. United State?, 56. 2. Di?rim?r? in vale, z; conslructlon o! ElAine Act. In construing the Eikin? Act i?, will be read not only lit the light of the pre- vious legislation on tile same s?hject, but also of the pnrpo?e which Congr? had in mind in enact in? it--to require :?ll shippers to be t re?te?l alike and to pay one rate as established, published aml po?ted. (New Haven Railroad Co. v. Interdate C'ornmer? Commission, 200 U.S. 361, 391.) lb. ?. Scope o! Interstate Commerce .Ict; tra?portati?rn embraced by. The Interstate Commerce Act crabs. wes the whole field of interstate com- merce; it does not exempt st?ch forvlgn commerce as is cortical on a through bill of laAing, but, in teruls appli?,s to the truneportation of property shipped from apy place in tile 1?nited ?tates to a foreign country and c?rried from s?cl? Id?ce to ? port of tcanshipment. lb. 4. Contracts/or carrla?,at published rates subfed to chonge in roles. There is no provision in ?he Elkins ),ct exempting ?pc�ial contracts from
�
