Trustee, etc., v.
STOVE MANUF' GOo.
(Circuit Court, N. D. New York.
April 26, 1880.)
INJUNG'TION-l\'10TION TO DIBsoLvE-::lrECIA.L NO'rICE-Fommn DECISION
Hamilton Harris, for plaintiff. Edward F. Bullard, for defendants. BLATCHFORD, O. J. This case has again been presented to the court on a second motion to dissolve the injunction granted against the use by the defendants of the invention claimed in the re-issued patent granted to Littlefield May 31, 1870, the surrendered patent having been granted to him March 13, 1866. 1. A large part of the defendants' papers on this motion a.re addressed to a point not involving anything pertinent to the motion, namely, an allegation that this court was misin saying, in its decision on the demurrer in' this case, that the patents of December 19, 1862, and August 18, 1863, the subjects of controversy in the former suit. I see no ...eason now to think that an error was made. 2. The "special notice" of January 24, 1866, set out in the I'fIllSwer, caimot have, of itself, the effect to vary the rights of the parties under the formal agreement of that date. 3. No ground is seen for doubting thai the result arrived at in the decision of this court on the demurrer was correct. nor is any satisfactory reaaon shown for dissolving the injunction.
L., O L. ...
DINSMORE, President, etc., v. THE LOUISVILLE, CINCINNATI & LEXINGTON RAILWAY CO:IiPANY.
(Circuit Court, D. Kentucky. :lI1ay 26, 1880.)
THE SOUTHERN EXPRESS COMPANY 'V. THE NASHVILLE, CnATTANOOGA. & ST. LOUIS RAILWAY COMPANY.
(Circuit Oourt, M. D. Tennessee. May 26, 1880.)
RAILROAD-CARRIERS-CANNOT DO EXPRESS BUSINESS.--Hailroad companies, as common carriers, are not authorized to carryon an express business. SAML:-SAME-HIGHTS OF EXPRESS COMPANIES.-As such carriers they are bound to provide for those doing an express business over their road rea· sonable and necessary facilities for such business, and to all upon'equal terms. They cannot insist upon the exclusive right to do such business over their lines of road, nor grant such right to one express company to the exclusion of others, but are bound to carry for everyone offering to do the same sort of business upon the same terms. ExPRESS COMPANy-RAILROAD REFUSING TO CARRY FOR.-Where an expres,s company had, under special contract, been for many years engaged in that business over the system of roads controlled by defendants, and had built up a large and valuable business, and established valuable connections, all of which would be much depreciated if defendant should be allowed to refuse to further allow it to carryon such business over lts line of road, held, that for that reason an injunction restraining luch actiqn might be granted.
Stanley Mathews, Olarence A. Seward and F. E. Whiljield, for Adams' Express Company and Southern Express Company. Russell Houston, Judge East, H. W. Bruce, Andrew Barnett and W. O. Dodd, for railroad companies. BAXTER, C. J. The case against the Nashville, Chattanooga & St. Louis Railway will be the first disposed of. We have not the time to state fully, and in detail, all the reasons for the decree we feel bound to enter in this case. The question is both novel and interesting, as well to the public as to the parties, and may be thus stated: The express business, as it is understood and carried on in the United States, was initiated in 1839. About that time one Alvin Adams began the carriage of small packages of v.2.no.5-30