an undue advantage to themselves, at its expense, by the formation of a new company, as an auxiliary to the original one, with the understanding that they, or some of them, are to take stock in it, and then that valuable contracts are to be given to it, on the profits of which they, as stockholders of such new company, are to share, are so many unlawful devices to enrich themselves to the detriment of the stockholders and creditors of the original company, and will be condemned whenever brought before the courts for consideration. In such case a complainant can derive no benefit from the contract thus tainted, made with the original company, and afterwards assigned to the new corporation. James M. Woolworth and James O. Broadhead, for appellant. A. J. Poppleton, for appellees. 'fhe cases cited in the opinion were: Great Luxembourg' Co. v. Magnay, 25 Beav. 586; Benson v. Heathorn, 1 Younge & CoIL 326; Flint & Pere Marquette R. Co. v. Dewey, 14 Mich. 477; European & N. A. R. Co. v. P()(il',59 Me. 277; Drury v. Cross, 7 Wall. 299. Construction of State Statutes-Rule of Decision. MOORES v. CITIZENS' NAT. BANK, 14 Cent. L. J. 228. This waS a case taken up on error to the circuit court of the United States for the southern district of Ohio, and decided in the supreme court of the United Statel:l on March 6, 1882. Mr. Justice Gray delivered the opinion of the court reversing the jUdgment of the court below. The construction given to the statute of limitations of a state by the highest court of such state is binding upon the federal courts, and the sustaining of a demurrer to plaintiff's reply, raising an issue which had been adjUdicated by the state snpreme court, and contrmy to such adj udication, was prejudicial to the plaintiff, and requires the reversal of final jUdgment rendered in favor of defendant. The cases cited in the opinion were: Ong v. Sumner, 1 Cin. Snp. Ct. 124; Lawrence R. R. v. Cobb, 35 Ohio St. 94; Tioga Railroad Co. v. Blossburg &; C. R. Co. 20 Wall. 137; Kibbe v. Ditto, 93 U. S. 674; Fairfield v. Gallatin Co. 100 U. S. 47, to the points of limitations and binding effect of the decisions of the state supreme court; and Deery v. Cray, 5 Wall. 795; Knox Co. Bank v. Lloyd, IS Ohio, 35::1; Bank v. Lanier, 11 Wall. 369; 'felegraph Co. v. Davenport, 97 U. S. 369, to the point that the ruling was prejUdicial.
PULLMAN PALACE CAB CO.
TEXAS & PACIFIC B.OO.
PULLMAN PALACE CAR CO.
(Circuit Court, E.
No decree should be entered or order allowed for the specific performance of a contract, where there is not a mutuality of remedy between the parties obtainable from the court.
SAME-WHEN NOT GJ'.ANTED-LAPRE OF
The court will not allow an injunction to compel the specific performance of continuous covenants with intricate detail, running through a period of nine years, over a vast system of railways, unreasonahly taxing the time, attention, and resources of the court aud its officers, and interfering in the general administration of justice.
OF A MONOPOLY.
Courts ought not to favor a monopoly in the accommodations which are necessaries to the traveling public, or foster it by the invention or application of extraordinary or unusual orders or remedies.
O. A. Lochrane and E. S. Isham, for complainant. John H. Kennard, W. W. Howe, S. S. P.rentiss, and John C. Brown, for defendant. PARDEE, C. J. The complainant sets forth in its bill an agreement alleged to have been made on the twenty-eighth d,ay of February, 1874, with the defendant company, whereby the Pullman Company was to furnish sleeping cars to be used by the railway company, sufficient to meet the demands of travel on its line of road, to provide the necessary attendants therefor, and also keep said cars in good running order and repairs, except repairs and renewals made necessary by accident and casualty; it being understood that the railway company should repair all damages to said cars, of every kind, occasioned by accident and casualty. The railway compauy to pay the Pullman Company for the use of said cars four ceuts per car per mile for each mile run, and the rail way company was to repair the cars in its own shops at cost price for the Pullman Company. Settlements to be made monthly. The railway company to furnish and apply lubricating materials, and provide fuel and lights for, and wash and cleanse, said cars. The railway company was to permit the Pullman Company to place its tickets on sale at the ticket offices of the railway company, and to permit the Pullman Company to collect from passengers using said
.Reported by Joseph P. Hornor. Esq., of the New Orleans bar.