Seattle daily post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, W.T. [Wash.]) 1881-1888, 1884-04-15
IMPORTANT CASE DECIDED.

Judge Greene Delivers an Able and
Exhaustive Decision In the Case Of
Wells. Fargo 4 60. against the North.
ern Pacific Railroad Company. In
which the Express Company comes
Out on Top.
One of the most important cases that
ever came before court in Washington
Territory for consideration. was decid-
cd by Judge Greene yesterday. in a
lengthy and exhaustive opinion. Fol
lowing il brief history Of the case, and
the summing up of the Chief Justices
findings:
A bill was filed in 1882, by Wells, Far
90 d Co. asking that the Northern Pa
cifio Railroad Company be enjoined
from eiecting them from their trains
which they had threatened to do. and
asking that the Railroad Company be
compelled to afford to the plaintiff the
same facilities for the conduct of ex
press business OF defendants trains.
both to its road as then completed, as
we'll az TO Its road to be afterwards
built. A restraining order was granted
until notice Of a motion for a temporary
Injunction could be given and heard.
The matter was heard on motion for sHch
temporary injunction by plaintiff. and
on defendants motion tn dissolve the
rest raining order, before Judges Greene
and Deadly, at Portland. Oregon, to-
gether with two other cases pending be-
fore Judge Deadly. in which the same
questions in substance were involved.
The case before Judge Greene, however,
covered several important questions not
raised in the other cases. The matter
was taken under advisement by Judge
Greene, and owing to the great quantity
Of business before him at chambers
and in the district, he WAS not able to
| reach a decision until the 1st Of Sep
TENDER, 1883, at which time he an
nounced a decision everything defend
ants motion to dissolve the injunction.
and construed the same in force "a TO
all roads of the defendant at that time
| completed and in operation. The plain
tiff at once filed motion to reinstate
the original restraining order. and upon
the order of the Court the order made
September LIST modifying the restrain
ing order was suspended until the mo-
ton TO reinstate could be heard. Plain
tiff in the meantime. owing to questions
as to his right to conduct his business
in Montana and Dakota. before comply
ing with the local laws of those Terri
tories. as also 10 include all roads con-
| structed by defendant since filing the
bill. and especially the road from Port
land to kalama, filed, by leave of the
Court. an amended and supplemental
bill. alleging compliance with the laws
of Oregon. Dakota. Minnesota and
Montana. and also setting out the ex-
tension of defendants road AS afore
said. The defendant at once filed a
motion to strike out the amended and
supplemental bill. This motion, As well
a. the motion to reinstate, was heard on
the 9th of December. and on the next
day the Court overruled the motion To
strike. and took the motion 10 reinstate
under ADJUSTMENT. The defendant then
filed demurrer to the bill, which vas
argued in January and taken under ad-
visen,ent. Yesterday afternoon Chief
Justice Greene delivered very able
and exhaustive opinion on the motion to
reinstate. The Court. in concluding
the opinion. summed up as follows:
But plaintiffs motion asks not merely
for reinstatement, but for sach order
as plaintiff Is emitted tn now. Section
l.2 of the code gives the judge, on this
motion. power to consider additional
aflidaviss and dispositions, as he shall
deem right. l, may be- questioned
whether this gives power to enlarge the
ope Of the writ beyond its first eifi
cheney. Bet my impression 10, that II
gives full power, and If II does not, the
power exists inherent in the judge a.
chancellor aside from statute as even
aeains, the letter of statute. So feel
free TO give plaintiff such an injunction
as IT shows il has right To sn the face
of its supplemental complaint and Aft |
davits. These. taken together, exhibit
a subsistinc compliance with the laws Of |
Montana, though the mode adopted for |
pleading II may be open TO technical oh !
lection. Plaintiff is therefore entitled /
tn have the injunction reinssated. and /
given henceforth the same force and |
efficiency as il a new isjunction order
were entered OF this date, and of the
original tenor"