The Memphis appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1886-1890, 1888-11-14

affected by the wrong complained OF.
Now upon these settled legal principles,
has this complainant made a case for equit-
able interference by temporary injunction?
Let it be assumed that the defendant has
violated statutory and common law duties,
and that it is inficting public wrong on
this community by the acts and practices
complained OF; and yet, the question re-
mains whether it is competent for this
court in this proceeding and at the suit OF
the complainant to interfere by its injunc-
ton? In my opinion il is not.
There can be no doubt that the common
law writ of mandamus would be the appro-
pirate remedy for the relief here asked for,
and certainly as adequate as this court may
give by injunction. The
stubborn fact that the complain
ants press and warehouse are located q
mile away form the defendants line OF
railroad stands in my opinion as an unsur-
passable obstacle to relief at its suit in this
court. take ii that il
has no greater interest under these
circumstances in this business trans
acted by the defendant than the
congresses at jackson or at Somervile.
The defendant can no more be forced to
1t can to the presses at Jackson or Somer-
vile. The line of defendants road is
connected mechanically by tracks with the
presses ut these places as well rs with the
complainants press, and | think that
these presses have as much right to COM
plain Of peculiar and distinctive injury,
from the public wrong committed by the
| defendant as the complainant has.
haI ID t.. 10. 81 hftil
warehouses on or near the defendants
road and then offer its cotton on the
same terms that the other company
does is not the question for decision. "
lido not attach much Importance TO the
| agency feature OF the contract between the
defendant and the Memphis Cotton Press
and Storage Company. incline to think
that this was one OF the eNpedients de.
vised by the parties TO keep down compe-
| tition and to be used rs answer TO COM
| plant OF discrimination. The Legitimate
business OF the defendant is 10 carry
frcights and not TO prepare them for trans
| portation, and believe that II n compel
ing company standing in precisely the
same relation TO the defendant that the
old congresses do, were 10 complain oil
! discrimination, the courts would not per-
lhlN tue htNlNc w tnc tisthNN ltiAul' vi
this contract TO avail the parties. There
is another ground upon which this pre-
liminary injunction should be denied. A
court should never issue its extraordinary
process when il is apparent that il would
be unavaiing and serve no practical
good" In conclusion Chancellor Estes
/ said:
81 cannot forbear 10 say in this connec-
ton that in my opinion one Of the great
est evils Of the present day is the tendency
to create and establish monopolies. These
are in conflict with the genius OF our Gov
eminent, and perhapsthe progress already
made in establishing them has had more
influence than any other cause in provoke
ing unrest and discomfort in the minds Of
\ our people.
Entertaining these views. / should not
hesitate in n clear case to use the strong
arm Of the court in oyerthrowing monop
oily. This is not such q ease, and the pre-
liminary injunction must be refused for
| the reasons here stated"