may be ground for remanding; otherwise we must tho case here. I do not Bee that any order is to be made here; we take no noticb whatever of the petition.
ORMSBY V. UNION PACIFIC
(Oircuit Oourt, D. Oolorado.
October 13, 1880.)
demurrer "to so much of the answer as sets up the special contract" will not be received by the court. 2. RAILBOAD-CONTRACT-REASONABLENESS.-A contract between u railroad company and a shipper of horses stipulated that for injuries to the animals shipped'over the line of the road the owner should make a demand in writing of the agent of the company before removing them from the place of destination, or from the place otdelivery, Held,. that this clause of the contract was not applicable where the injury was the illness of the animals, and the. extent of such illness could not be known Ut til their removal from the cars, and probably not for some little time after such removal.
Demurrer. - - - , for plaintif1. - - - , for defendant. HAJ,LETT, D. J. In the case against the railroad company, the plaintiff alleges that he shipped certain horses over its line, and that they were detained on the way, at a place called Brookville, for a space of 24 hours, in consequence of which they were sick, and two of them died; that he was put to expense in taking care of all of them, and that Bome of them depreciated in value-those that were not wholly lost. To this the defendant sets up that there was a special contract in relation to the shipment of these horses; but the special contract does not in any way provide for the detention of the stock on the way. It says nothing on that subject; so that, as far as the first defence alleged here is concerned, the contract is not at all pertinent to anything that is alleged in the declaration. The plaintiff, in demurring to it, says that he demU1"8 to so much of the answer as sets up the special contract. We do not receive a. demurrer on such a. specifica..
OBMSBY V. U. P. BY. CO.
tion as that. The clerk would not know, nor would anybody, what is meant by saying "we sustain the demurrer to so much of the answer as sets up the special contract." / There are in the answer, however, some things which are iI.1 denial of the complaint, as that there was any detention of the horses on the way; that the horses were of the value alleged; nnd there is a cLarge of new matter\: that the horses were sick before they were taken upon the railroad at all, and tbat they dilld in consequence of Buch sickness. All that is properly in answer to the complaint; and as to what is irrel. '3vant and has nothing to do with the matters alleged in the complaint, if the demurrer could be sustained upon that ground at all, it would have to point out by line and word certain parts, so that we should know where we began and when we came to the end. As to the last clause of the answer, which may be taken to be an independent answer in itself, that sets up a provision in the contract that for injuries to the animals shipped over the line of the road the owner should make a demana in writing of the agent of the before removing the;m from the place of destination, or the place of delivery.· It may be that for some injuries this clause in the agreement would be effectual; but here, according to the charge of the' complaintJ the injury was illness of the animals, which hardly be discovered until they should be removed from the car; and this clause in the contraet would require the parties to hold them there at the depot ground, I suppose, until they could ascertain whether they were in good condition or not. That would be very unreasonable indeed: As to such matters as are charged in the complaint-an illness occurring to ani· mals, the extent of which could not be known until they should be removed from the car, and probably not for some little time after their arrival here-it may be said that this. clause in the agreement is of no effect; that the railroad company could not make any such provision in respect to stock shipped over their line. The demurrer will be sustained to the last clause or paragraph, or whatever it may be called, of the'answer, and overruled to the other.
FEDERAL REPORTER. NORTHERN PAC. R. CO. v. BARNESVILLE & M. R. CO. and othe.rs.
(Oircuit Oourt, D. Minnesota. - - , 1880.)
1. BRlDOE-NAVIGABLE RIVER-NUISANCE-INJUNCTION.-A preliminary injunction to restrain the erection of a bridge across a navigable river will not be allowed, where it is shown that such bridge will not be an obstruction necessarily amounting to a. nuisance.
Application of plaintiff for preliminary injunction to restrain defendants from erecting a draw-bridge across the Red l'iver of the north. Gilman et Clough, for the application. Bigelow, Flandrau J; ClarI" Geo. B. Young, and R. B. Galusha, against. NELSON, D. J. It is not clear to my mind that the complainant can maintain this suit in which an injunction is prayed,. The Northern Pa.cificRailroad Company was chart.ered to construct and operate a railroad from Lake Superior to, tp.e Pacific ocean. The authority to build a road between these two points, thus giving almost a continuous route of and west across the continent, gave the chief value to its franchises.. The road was not to be built for the purpose of securing the trade upon the navigable waters it crossed on its route, although the navigation of these waters might increase its revenues, and I am not fully satisfied that this navigation is so important that the .value of the railroad would be seriously injured by anything that obstructed it. But, concede that an obstruction to the navigation of the Red river of the north, a navigable river which it crosses, would seriously impair the value of the road and affect, injuriously the private interests of the company so that it could enjoin such obstruction, the question is then presented, will the contemplated bridge, to be erected by the said defendants, be an obstruction and a nuisance? If it will be a nuisance to the company, no legislative authority for its construction by the state of Minnesota would justify its erection, and no authority from the legislature of