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.
riage and rates of freight against competing telegraph companies, (being against public policy and in violation of law,) are absolutely null and void as against the complainant herein, and ought not in justice and equity to be alleged, pleaded, or set up against said complainant by said Western UnioI). Telegraph Company in any suit or at any place; and considering, further, that the matters set up in the bill herein and the exhibits produced are within the equity jurisdiction of the court, and call for the exercise of the equitable writ of injunction, it is ordered that an injunction pending this suit issue as prayed for; with the eondition, however, that the said injunction shall not be taken or construed as enjoining or prohibiting proceedings in any state court.
(lJircuit Oourt, E. D. Loui8iana. June 9, 1885.
LEASE-Loss OF THING LEASED.
Under tile Louisiana law a lease is dissolved by loss of the thIng leased, (La. Civil Oode, art. 2728;) and a lease shall end if the thing leased be destroyed by an unforeseen event. La. Civil Code, art. 2697.
SAME-OVERFLOWS NOT UNFORESEEN EVENTS.
It is the settled jurisprudence of the state of Louisiana that crefJasses and overflows of the Mississippi river are not unforeseen accidents, and this is in accordance with the natural state of things as they exist in the alluvial poction of Louisiana. Jack80n v. Michel, 33 La. Ann. 723. followed.
In Chancery. S. C. 22 FED. REP. 422. Charles Louque, for complainant. Geo. H. Braughn, Chas. F. Buck, and Max Dinklespeil, for defendants. PARDEE, J. This cause was on application and consent of both parties referred to one of the masters of this court. His report covers all the issues in the case, and seems to be in accord with the evidence. His findings are as follows: (1) That the property leased was not destroyed; (2) that the loss of the growing crop, the partial filling of the canals and ditches, and the washing away of the bridges, were not caused by an unforeseen event; (3) that the plantation is as suitable for cultivation as a sugar plantation, if not in better condition, as it was prior to the overflow, and that the clearing of the canals and ditches and the repairing of bridges are incidents necessary to the cultivation of a sugar plantation; (4) that equity can give no relief to complainant, and that his bill should be dismissed, with costs. The exceptions filed attack the entire report and conclusions, and
lReported by Joseph P. Hornor, Esq., of the New Orlesl18 bar. Revened, see 7 Sup. Ct. Rep. 962. .