The Memphis appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1886-1890, 1888-11-14
THE COMPRESS WAR;
Chancellor Estes Declines to Interfere
And States His Reasons With His
Usual Clearness.
Tho Companies Not In the Same
Relation to Defendant
Tho Difference in That Respect
Specifically Defined.
The N. N. 81 NJ. v. r. r. Co. Cannot Be
Forced to Send Its Cars
to Complainant's
Pros.

read his opinionin the case OF the Buyers
and Factors Press against the Newport
News & Mississippi Valley Railroad Com
pany. The important points OF the de-
cision are as follows:
''1he bill charges that defendant entered
into wftten contract with the Merchants
Cotton Press and Storage Company by
which it binds itself to have all the cotton
received by it for transportation for ten
years compressed by this company; that
this contract is a combination to foster a
monopoly and stiAe competition in viola
ton OF statutory and common law, and
which is especially hurtful to complainant.
In so far as IL complains OF the specific
transactions touching the 500 bales pro-
posed to be shipped by @. +. Farms
worth x Co., am OF the opinion that
the complainant is not entitled TO any
distinct relief, for the entire record shows
that the presses were q mile away from
the defendants track, and that, although
il is shown that there is q track connect
ing the road with the press, this is not the
defendants track, aud | take il that corr
plainant cannot in law or reason require
II TO leave its road or switches to take
offered freight and for this reason, and
because II appears that the presses Of the
Memphis Cotton Press and Storage
Company are on the lire OF de-
PENDANTS road or switch trucks, the al
legged discrimination, 50 far as this trans
action is concerned, has not been estab-
lished in this suit. To establish an act OF
discrimination II must be shown that all
the essential conditions are alike in the
two cases OF which the discrimination Is
predicated. And il is well settled that n
railroad company Is not obliged TO receive
or decline ireights beyond or away from
lis own line"
Chancellor Estes quoted numerous au.
thorities sustaining this point and continu-
ing said he was relieved OF any extended
discussion OF the proposition 10y the candid
statement in the complaintants brief that
il was not that the carrier, defendant,
would not send its cars oil its tracks 20
plaintiffs press there to be loaded with
couon, but that il had entered into an
agreement with the Memphis Cotton
Press and Storage Company for the
purpose Of controlling comprcssions in the
city Of Memphis in the interest OF that
company, and IN luriheranca Of that pur.
pose refused TO receive and transport com
pressed cotton ut the regular scheduled
rates without discriminating in favor Of
the Older company TO the dctriment OF the
complainant
"in the discussion OF this proposition, &"
continued the Chancellor, 81 shall assume
that the contract made between tho de-
PENDANT aud the Memphis Cotton
Press and Storage Company, was
monOpolstic In It's purposes and tendcn-
az a,.I safa Of
the internal evidence afforded by It's terms
and the surroundings, ! am strongly dis
posed 10 the opinion that II was and Is,
but IL is quite sufficient here TO merely
assume this without expressly deciding IT,
'"rhe question, then, Is whether this
violation OF duty 10 the public imposed
both by statute and common law, can be
rcdressed by the process Of injunction in
court 81 equity and nc the suit OF this
complainant. The following legal propo.
eilions from which decision OF the qucs.
ton now under discussion may be evolved
seem 10 be thoroughly settled by the au-
thorities.
"a court Of equity cannot interfere
merely 10 prevent breach OF law, or IN
the absence Of injury 10 private rights a
court OF equity will not lend its aid by In
junction 20 restrain the violation OF public
or penal statutes.
''The usual and appropriate remedies FOL
the failure OF n corporation 10 perform IL
public duties arc 10y indictment, or by {
forfeiture OF is charter through pro
ccy'ing Of quo warmntoor by writ Of man
dy AUS.
lin consideration Of valuable franchises
aud powers granted by the state under III
charters 90 railroad companies they ASSUME
aud have imposed on them duties and oh
legations TO the public which they ar
bound 20 fulfill They become quasi pub
lie corporations and quasi trustees for th'
public.
''One Of the most important Of thcsl
public duties is that OF carrying freight 4
The limit Of their capacities without undul
or unreasonable discrimination In charge
or facilities.
"Whilc II Is clear as n general rule that
private person or u corporation cannot SUI
60 redress an injury 81 the public IN gen
eral, aud that Il IL usual and fitting tia
ihc Attorney-Gcncral, a. the Representa-
tive OF the State, should maintain sucl
suits, still Il Ia settled that when the Gus
comes appropriately within the principle
OF equitable Jurisprudence and the publ
wrong complained Of affects private indI
yidual or corporation peculiarly and dis
tnctly from the effect on the public a
large, such person or corporation ma
maintain SUIT In equity 10 redress the pub
lie wrong at least 10 the extent that he o
Il h Affected thereby.
"Whilc the court IN Union Pacific Rail
road Company w. Hale 81, U. = 3il
seems 10 bc Of opinion that a prcpondcI
anco Of American authority settles that
private person without restriction ma
move for mandamus 20 enforce publ
duty without the introduction Of Gov
eminent law officer, Il is not claimed tina
this Il 20 In equity The patent an
soleni reason Of this rule Is that " ever
private individual Ia city, county Q
hiato should I've entitled without rsiri,
ton 10 sue for the redress Of wrongs 10 ih
public inhnmcablo suits might llood ia
courts all for the same purpose. Tho rem
ody Of thiseyil suggested by Judge stron
IN the opinion IN tile case last above ctoC
u be found In the caution aud discrctio
Of the Judges In granting the exir.
ordinary remedies would certainly
ineficacious IN our State courts, who
al the common law as well ~ III
equity Judges arc ust-lly cmpoworo
o, grant thee remedies, and when the
SIC often granted without question or di
aretion. In my opinion u is nj least que
,.onsblc whether tho weight OF authVrii
s.,sss tho rule, stated by Judge sircn
sycr In mandamus proceedings, aud b
,srd question Il Is safer and better th
he iuic should bo the other way N
..ses. But In equity there II no don
nat :. p.iys.e individual or corporate
pnno, sac 70 redress a public ri0ig "
~. he ~ 4 ID peculiarly aud tS..ac.