accommodations from their competitors, they can suppress competition, and establish and maintain a 'monopoly in that particular department of trade, and subject the public to the payment of undue and unreasonable exactions for the services rendered. I am very clear that no such right exists. Where a railroad company assumes to receive, take care of, water, feed, and forward stock asa part of its undertaking to transport' them, as it may lawfully do, they are at liberty to select such agencies as they may choose to employ for the purpose, and the exercise of the right is no wrong to ,any one else. But that is not the question here. The complainant does not complain of defendant's transacting.its business through its own agents. Its Slomplaint is that the defendant refuses to deliver stock consigned to his yard to him, except through the yards of, eo-defendant, and it is against this unauthorized and injurious discritnination that he seeks relief. The two yards are contiguous. They are both connected with the Cincinnati & BaltImore Railroad Company's road (over which the defendant is running its trains) by suitable switches. The railroad defendant can receive stoGk from and deliver stock to the one as easily as to the other, but r.efuses to do so. The and injurious to discrimination is contrary to a sOlUld :public the complainant. It gives to the United Railroad. Stock-Yards Company important advantages in the receipt and shipment of stock, over the complainant-an injustice which no railroad: company, in the exercise of its quasi public functions, ought to be permitted to inflict The power upon anyone engaged in a lawful and necessary: to prevent 8uch an ·abuse is, as we have already affi:nned, vested in courts of equity until the legislature shall provide another and different remedy. A preliminary injunction, correl!lponding in its scope with the granted, on.complainrestraining order heretofore issued, is in the penalty of $20,000, with securities ant's entering into a to be approved and accepted by theclerk,.conditioned to prosecute the suit with effect, or in the event.he fails to do so that he will pa.y the defendants aU such damages respectively sustained by reason of the wrongful suing out of sai!l, injunctiou.
NOTE. The temporary restraining Order was asfollows: "It" theretore ordered by the court that the .defeudant ,railroad company shall, so long as said company shall continue to deliver stock to the United Railroads Stock-Yards Compa.ny, until the further order of deSist from making any discrimination between the complRinant'syards and those ot the United Railroads Stock-Yarda Company, andliobal\ re<leiveall the consigned, or which
DUNSOOMB V. HOLST.
the shipper shall desire to consign, to said complainant's yards,"and transport and deliver the sam.e upon the same terms and in the Same manner that stock is received and transported and delivered unto the United Railroads Stock Yards Company, upon giving bond in the sum of $20,000." It may be noted, as a part of the history of this controversy, that the Marietta & Cincinnati Railroad Company, operating the Cincinnati & Baltimore Railroad, had established a switch to the United Railroads Stock-Yards, and made that its live-stock station for the city of Cincinnati, and refused to establish or permit the establishment of a switch to, or station at, the stockyards of the complainant in the. principal case. 'J.'hat being the only road reaching the stock-yards of the complainant he was practically cut off from access to or from the railroads of the city. The Marietta & Cincinnati Railroad Company was in the hands of receivers appointed by the common pleas court of Ross county, Ohio. An application was made to Judge Baxter to compel the receiv.ers to afford the complainant equal facilities with those accorded his competitor. As the receivers had been appointed by the state court, and its road and property were therefore under its control, his honor refused the application and remitted the complainant to the state court for redress. Afterwards application was made to the Ross county court, and, after full hearing, an order entered directing the receivers to afford to the complainant equal facilities with those granted to the rival yard. For a report of the decision of the Ross county common pleas. court, which was delivered by Judge Minshall, see 7 Cincinnati Weekly Law Bull. 295. See, on.the8ubject of railroad di!,criqJ.ination, Hallsv. Pennsylvania Go. 12 FED. REP. 309, and note thereto. Also the EaJPress Oompany Gases, before Justice Miller and JUdge FED. REp. 210, 869.-[REP.
June 21, 1882.)
At a llale.of land at pUblic auction by an officer of the court, where the title to the land was acquired by the defendant under the following devise in a will : "I bequeath to my daughter [the land In question] for her and herchiJdren's sole and separate use, free from any qlaim or control of her husband,"-and the purchaser at the sale declined to comply with the terms of his purchase, alleging a defect of title, held, that.a title acquired by such a devisee is not of such Clear and indisputable character as the purchaser bas a right to demand, and that a court of equity will relieve the purchaser from complying with his bid made at the sale.
That under such circumstances" and· after anlnvestfgatlOD of the tItle Ily the master, the court will order a r8i&le of luch interest in the land u the defendants to the suit may hav..