, 1870-03-29

GesIy It doA not; bot TIN question oceur1:
What podntA sre to b conndered on tho
line Of = r.ilwey for :i,e Pu,poee a de1i1eEy
10 't counsel s ia ot appeilss. p % 1sey 80 eanisad
that its limo consists only Of iss 1unn
tack, md such eido tTscks .ss belong to H..
Fur most purposes this u undoubtedly t1ne.
but not In rete1once to thei1 dutias under thla
ably, refuse to slow the owner Of adiseent
property 10 lay down side track oonnechng
With It's oNn rails, but whcn, for valid con
eiiaratton, i has nn.e conferred thst rYh1
and, . in the case tsetorp M, has permitted
the connection to be made, md tho side track
to b. laid for tho uao Of a particular l9t Of
ground, and In order 10 transport fn aueh lot
heasy articles OF freight and the ovnor Of
said Lot and side track has his warehouse IN
readiness fo1 the roceipt Of such ffaight7 then
a part Of it, line for the purpose Of delivery
under this statute. There is no reason why II
should not be 80 regarded, IL much as
il The elnvMor stood upon = sike track
belonging to the railway itself. Whist differ
ence does it make 10 the company who OWLS
The ground or who has laid the rail17 Can It
not deliver car lo1d Of wheat with tho sane
convenience whether tbs side track belongs to
itcslf or to some other person with whom 1t
h1a batEaineI the track may be laids And
when VIC thus speak OF equality OF convenience.
VIC arc to bear in mind thst railways have been
excused from delivery 70 conaignees only an
the ground Of imposeibility, and not as nat
h.s no right upon such side track, except By
Tie permission Of the owner. A well might it
bs said that common carrier by Wagoa hid
no right 70 drive through the gateway Of the
conEignee for tho purpose OF delivering goods,
for non-deIivesv. @ Ii Alter the g II tTseE s hsa
ing freight, the company his a
right to eend it's cars there for tue purpose Of
delivery, until forbidden by the owner When
ihat il done. the company will be excused from
deayey: TheFe is no prctsnoo for saving tho
view only grim warehouses erected upon the
land Of the Railway Companies II there be
such warehouse erected in Chicago they wou1d
stand in Little need OF IN act OF the 1egisla-
ture for their protection: The Legislature had
its eyes turned in another direction: 1ta evi-
injurious monopoliea IN the grain trade which
would almost necessarily spring from the toler-
Ation OF such = practice - that which these
appellants seek to cnjoin. To do this it waA
whose warehouse was CONNECTED By side track
with : railahy. the right 10 delivery uf Ii
grain eonsigued to him.
WhAt re hare said sufficiently disposea Of tho
point made by counsel ~ to the coustitutionali-
y Of the act Of the 1egialAture. It may be
9uired By Legislative enactment to transport
freight beyond its own line, but that this act il
valid as TO warehouses upon the line Is not de-
nied by counsel, md such VIC hold the ware-
house Of appellants to be. Neither Is 1t neces-
rasy to consider the import Of the contract bo-
Wxyno i Chicago Hallway, OF how far j. is
binding on tue appellee a. a remote grantee. It
il sufficient that the aprellante elav stor is con-
nected with the main line by 4 aido tract, and
that tho connection wns made for = valuable
consideration, With the consent Of the company
that the appclleo has a right to de-
stroy it, In order TO cxcuse itself from
the performance Of 4 duty But II il con-
tended. finally, that even admitting the CON-
plainants have been 1rongcd BY tho sPpoloe,
their only remedy is BY. action for tho txo
the statute. Various authorities ar citod for
tho purpose Of showing that wherc new right
hAa been crested, and IN adequats remedy for
its invasion provided BY the same Btatue, par
ties injured Ato confined to the statutory re-
dre+s. This is doubtless true, but in this case
quate- new and enlarged remedy Is givon,
but the right Of the cons!ence to delivery IL az
old as the common law. The right in this caso
10 reeort to the restraining process Of court
Of ehaneely springs from Tie fact thst The 1,,
Destroy or greatly injure. tho business OF the
| appellants. This is evident; for il the tax
of IS per car il charged by them to their cor
respondents. they would boon CEASE to receive
shipments Of grain. and If paid by themselves
: in comparison With their rivnls in business.
For surll Injuries tho damages in suit at law
could furnish no Just compensation, and there
fore c!:aurery williuteEfcrc. Webbcr rs. Gage,
y n. H.. ls., and Watson Is. Sunderland, {
''alace, =, arc authorities in point A sys-
SnFS StHr Il L..
tive that could not interfere to prevent wrongs
Of ilis character, Incapable, from their nature
" Icing redreseel by DAMAGES As to the
| eight Of tho company to impose the e2trs
| charge Of s.. on the ground that it is perform
ing additional service. it need only be said tha
| establish its rates Of transportation
| examination AZ to individuals It mus
deal faizly By the public. and this i! would moi
| l'o doing il allowed so to discriminate as te
build up the business Of ono, rers~ the IN.
jury Of another In tho samo trade asr fl
ita rates OF charges for transporting Nishel
Of grain from my given station u{>a. \, line
to Chicago, but the grain being taken IT,, ., il
cannot charge ono rate for delivering it 4. the
elevator Of Mum Scott, and another for dc.
livery .. That Of appellant. When it takes
liver i in Chicago, at any warehouse upon ite
line Of eidc-trxcks to which it has been con.
signed. Tho object Of the Lcgi-latuzc in pass
| ing the statute upon which We have comment
! cd would be utterly defeated il companies were
left At lborty to discriminate 1t their discretion
in their charges for delivery at different
warehouses; Tint ia rs much prohibited by
tho spirit Of tho law "A tho sc.ual delivery ia
| nny otler pcrson than tho conaignee by its
letter. As TO The general equity Of tho bill il
ia hardly necessary to remark 1t il to be
hoped that when tho ansHcr comes in, and the
evidence ie heard, some explanation may be
given BY the defendant Of its course. For the
present VIC must accept tho bill as true. al
the record now stands, tho company eoems te
be usinH its vnst powets AZ \ corporation will
= view to create a practical monopoly for I
fasoted house, in acn1ing with all tho grai1
that must necessarily como orer its lines from
thus running tho busiucss of tho appellants
and innugufatins policy which, il ono
established, would place the farmers o
the State under Grievous tribute; m,
all this In dcfianco Of an act OF th
Legislature 60 plain that he who run
my read The act In question is an eminent
lr wise and talntarF Law, and the courts shonl
use all their legitiua power to guart it aga4ns
either open tlnobediouce or covert evasion
Tho decree Of the Superior Court ia reverse!
and tho. cAuse rcmanded. That court vi
award Temporary Injunction, restraining III
defendants from delivering to any other plac
or warehouse than that Of compliments, IN
grain consigned to their warehouse, or frur
imposing upon them Al additional charge IA
fuch delivery beyond what In imposed npo
othet watehousemcn; taking from tho CON
nlainants bond with approved security, con
titioned in tho usual manner; and il, upon
finnl hearing, tho case nlaGc hy the bill is stie
taincd. the court will mako such injunction pei
L