The Cheyenne daily leader. [volume] (Cheyenne, Wyo.) 1870-1884, 1880-08-01
McCRARY's RULING.
-. Last " tA~ EslsEr.ph LiAs Case.
DeeIaea.
s..a L~sa Aasass cis~a 20 Am
Cs.esrnea-

Tokepa, Ks. July 3l.-In the United
states circuit court to-day Judge Nc
cray rendered his opinion In the case
ofths Western Union Telegraph COM
,auy. versus the 81. Joseph and Denver
rallroad, the American Telegraph COM
uapy and others affecting the telegraph
line on that railroad from st. Joseph to
Hasting, Neb. This was one OF the
Western Union Telegraph lines seized
by the Gould railroads during the night
Of February 26th last. Judge Mccrary
holds that il Is not necessary TO deter
mine whether the railroad charter ex-
plred in 1877 or not. or whether the
control with the Western Union
Telegram company Is void or not, be-
cause in 50 far rs the control has been
executed, the parties are bouud and the
rights have accrued that the court Of
equity will enforce. When the control
was entered into with moral turpitude,
under ii a line Of telegraph has been
built and operated, aud valuable
business has been created. For about
nine years II has been recognized and
executed. Under these circumstances
Il is not the province OF sither party 70
declare the contract void and assume
without process, and without a settle
ment, TO seize the line and property.
On the question OF the effect OF the
foreclosure proceedings. Judge Nc
Crary holds that the ratification Of the
contract and the use, OF the line under
il bind the successors the same rs the
original railroad company. On the
question Of the exclusive privilege
given the telegraph company Of con-
struction and operating n line Of tele-
graph along the railroad. he says he has
little doubt that the clause referred to
is void, and II any other telegraph COM
pany desires 10 construct a line, the
Western Union cannot object; but the
clause does not yitiate the entire con-
tract, rs between the parties, much
less does 1t preclude the plaintiff from
seeking the aid OF court Of equity to
protect the rights acquired under It,
and growing out OF its execution In the
past equity way enjoin its violation.
The defendants may be able TO show
that the contract ought to be cancelled
by decree of the court. That ID n
question which can only be determined
upon final hearing. In case OF this
kind, where the contract requires o
continuous service for years, and
where the parties disagree, even then
the contract Is not absolutely void. A
court of equity may decree q dissolu-
ton OF the relations between them up
on a full settlement OF their accounts
and the payment Of any balance.
The Judge concludes rs follows:
What wish to emphasize In this case,
as well as other similar cases, Is, that
the defendants have no right to take
their remedy into their own hands. II
they have the right to seize this pro-
perty by force upon the ground that
they hold the contract void, according
tothe same reason the plaintiff would
have the right to adjudge the contract
void and by force retake the property,
in other words, force and violence
would take the place of the courts Of
justice, the strongest legitant, the one
commanding the largest force and the
most money would succeed. Such a
doctrine is required by the courts as a
proper mode Of adjusting disputes con-
cerning property rights. 1t would lead
at once TO anarchy IL the defendants,
after years Of acquiesence In the con-
tract in question, after receiving the
benefits and after b property had been
built up under It, to which others
make claim, became suddenly convinced
that 1t was void contract, 1t was their
duty to apply TO the courts for relief,
praying a cancellation Of the contract
and full and fair settlement OF all ac-
counts growing out OF Its execution in
the past. Until they seek some such
remedy and until a fair settlement up
on full accounting can be had, they
viii be enjoined from attempting to
eject the plaintiff or to seize the pro-
perty. The demurrer Of the bill Is
overrnled.n