pay, whichseizrtre is provisional in'that it be set aside for the reasons set forth in the Code. The "provisional seizure" issued in this case not being warranted by the equity rules and practice, and not being incidental to "exer-u.tory process" under the Code of Practice of Louisiana, and therefore not warranted by rule 39 of this court, must be discharged and vacated. The order for "executory procesR," pure and simple, we feel compelled to maintain. It is therefore ordered that the provisional seizure issued in this case be dismissed, with costs, and that defendant's motion to quash the "execntory process" be dismissed, with costs.
FINK 'V. QUEEN
(Circuit Court, E. D. Louisirtna. January 24, 1885.) FmE
Where it appears that an insurance policy against Joss by fire was issued to secure a mortgage of the insured property, but by mistake was made in the name of the owner of the property, instead of the mortgagee, who was the contracting party for the insurance, and the property was destroyed by fire during the term of the policy, it is against equity to permit the insurance company to set up its mistake and the actions of the owner to defeat the claim of insurance .under the con tract, and the contI act was reformed and judgment given against the insurance company in favor of the mortgagee for the amount of his mortgage.
INSURANCE-REFORMATION OF POLICY.
In Chancery. B. R. Forman, for complainant. J. Ad. Roz'ier, for defendant. PARDEE, J. This cause came on to be heard upon the bill, answer, exhibits, and evidence, and was argned; and, it appearing to the court that the complainant, Peter Fink, owned a debt secured by mortgage, and had paid taxes on the property insured, and described in the bill, exceeding in the aggregate $700, and did make a contract of insurance of said mortgage interest with the defendant for saiel amount of $700, and that the policy, by mistake, was made in the name of Mrs. A. S. Lacey, the owner, as the assured, instead of in the name of said Peter Fink, the real contracting party, and whose mortgage interest was intended to be assured; and it appearing that the mortgaged property was destroyed by fire during the term of the policy, to the loss of the said mortgagee of over $700; and that it is against equity to permit the defendant to set up its mistake and the actions of Mrs. A. S. Lacey, who was no party to the contract, to
?Reported by Joseph P. Hornor, Esq" of the New Orleans bar.
BALTIMORE & OHIO TEL. CO. 'V. WESTERN UNION TEL. CO.
defeat the claim of insurance under said contract,-it is thereupon and therefore ordered, adj 11dged, and decreed by the court that the policy of insurance dated twentieth of April, 1881, issued by the defendant to Peter Fink, be reformed, so as to read as follows in its substantive parts, to·wit :
"The Queen Insurance Company, of Liverpool and London, England, in consideration of twelve 50-100 dollars paid to it by Peter Fink, do hereby in· sure said.l:'eter Fink to the amount of seven hundred dollars against loss or damage by fire on the one-story frame shingled dwelling-house, $625, fences, $45, cistern, $30, situated on east corner Chestn ut and Homer streets, in New Orleans, to secure and protect his claims secured by mortgage lien and priVilege upon the said property to the amount of seven hundred dollars, within and for the term of one year from the twentieth of April, 1881."
And it is further ordered, adjudged, and decreed that the defendant, the Queen Insurance Company, of Liverpool and London, England, do pay to the said plaintiff, the said sum of $700, with 5 per cent. per annum interest from the twentieth of January, 1882, until paid. and the cost of this suit, to be taxed by the clerk of the court.
OHIO TEL. Co.
WESTERN UNION TEL. CO.l
(Oircuit Oourt, E. D. Louisiana. October 24, 1884.)
TELEGRAPH COMPANIES-ExCLUSIVE PRIVILEGES-CONTRACT AGAINST PUBLIC POLICY.
A contract between a telegraph company and a railroad company, by which it is attempted to give an exclusive right to the fonner to build and operate a telegraph line over the lines and right of way of the railroad company, and by which the railroad company agrees to discriminate in the carriage and rates of freight against competing telegraph companies, being against public policy, is absolutely null and void.
In Chancery. On motion for an injunction. James R. Beckwith, for complainant. Thomas L. Bayne and George Denegre, for defendant. PARDEE, J. This cause came on to be heard on the motion of the complainant for an injunction pendente lite. and was argued by counsel, whereupon it is considered by the court that the several clauses in the contract of May 9, 1879, between the Western Union Telegraph Company and Morgan's Louisiana & Texas Railroad & Steam-ship Company, and in the contract of October 17, 1879, between the Western Union Telegraph Company and the Louisiana & Western Railway Compauy,by which the said Western Union Telegraph Company is apparently given the exclusive right of building and operating a telegraph line over the lines and right of way of said railroad companies, and by which the said railroad companies agree to discriminate in the car1 Reported
by Joseph P. Hornor, Esq., of the New Orleans bar.