The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1896-08-08
TRACTION COMPANY WINS.
Judge Cof Hands Down an Opinion IN
the United States Circuit Court
DISMISSING BILLS OF COMPLAINT,
He Declares 1t Would be Against Pubic
Policy to Enforce the Contract Win
Hyer-CounseI for Hyer VIII Take an
Appcal-what Judge Holls.ay says.

Circuit Court for the Eastern district
Of Virginia. yesterday handed down an
opinion IN tho case OF ryer VS.. the Rich
mond Traction Company. After carefully
considering the demurrer entered by coun-
sci for the Traction Company TO tho
amended iii OF con plants filed by hyeri
counsel. Judge Con declares that to en-
force the contract. the object with which
tho suit was brought. would be against
public policy. lie therefore sustains the
demurrer OF the defendants and dismiss
es the complanants bills. The Following
is the full text OF Judge Cons opinion:
JUDGE GoFFs OPINION.
This cause has been most elaboratey
and ably argued on the defendants de-
murrer to the complainants second
amended and supplemental bill Of COM
plant Numerous grounds Of demurrer
are assigned. but considering them In the
order in which they appear II Will only
be necessary in the view l take OF this
case to dispose OF the four first men
toned.
The first and second are IN substance
the same in which the claim Is made that
this court has not jurisdiction OF tnis
controversy on account OF the citizenshik
OF the parties thereto, and because q,
the provisions OF the Constitution ana
laws Of the United States relating 10
such matters. This cia.m Is In my Ju"S'
ment without merit. ind that the coufl
has jurisdiction Of this controversy. and
Of the parties thereto. In fact counsei io'
the defendants. in closing the argument OF
the demurrer, virtually conceded the ju-
risltction of the court, so far at least
as the question OF citizenship was con
cerned.
The third reason assigned is that the
complainant has "A plain. complete. ana
adequate remedy at law, if any he mas.
against tho defendants In the case made
by the bills. | do not concur with coun-
sci for the defendants in the argument
submitted on this point. and so far as
il is concerned the demurrer must be
oy,rruled. In my judgment IN cases or
this character. where specific perform
ance is claimed. complete and adequate
remedy can only be had in a court or
equity.
AGAINST PUBLIC POLICY.
The fourth reason assigned for the do
murrer is that the contract and agree
ment set forth by the complainant as
cause Of action, Is null and void. because
against public policy. and that, there
fore, q court OF equity should not en-
force 1t. Counsel Tor complainant and
defendants. with zeal highly commenda-
bic, have most successfully searched the
books and presented TO the court all
the authorities. / think. bearing upon
this point. from the earliest reports to the
present time. | have carefully examined
them. giving 10 the same much time and
thought While none OF the cases cited
are exactly similar u the one now con-
slider. still many Of them have points In
common with II. and the reasoning or the
courts in Gre able opinions referred 10.
by which the rule OF law mentioned has
now been well established. includes. In
my judgment. contracts of the charac-
ter set up AMI relied upon by the COM
plainant. I think that the contract, the
specific enforcement of which is the OBJ
jcct Of this suit. the intention of which
was TO withdraw competition from be-
fore the City Council of the city of Rth-
mond. Is void, because against public
policy. and / shall. therefore. decline 10
enforce the same. Reaching this conclu-
sion. IL will be unnecessary 10 consider
the remaining grounds Of demurrer. A de.
cree may be prepared sustaining defend
ants demurrer and dismissing complain.
ants bills.
QUESTIONS or IMPORT AN'E.
Ny continued engagements on the cir
cult since this case vas submitted and
the time necessarily required TO examine
the many authorities cited have prevent
ed the preparation and hling OF an opin-
ION covering the points decided, and
would delay the announcement OF my
conclusion in order that / might haze
time so 10 do. were not. for reasons plain.
ly apparent the parties hereto. I'm which
counsel evidently concur. most anxious
for an early decision OF tho questions
raised by the demurrer. This case in
wolves questions OF great importance, not
only 70 the complainant. but Tn tso
country az large. and its early decision
by the court OF last resort. is desirable.
not only because OF the interests OF the
parties 10 the controversy, but also be-
cause the puolic Is concerned In the early
and proper adjustment OF the same. An
appeal 10 the Circuit Court of Appeals
for this circuit, II now promptly taken
and perfected. can be heard and disposed
OF at the coming November term OF that
court.
NATHAN GOFF.
United States Circuit Judge.
August 8. 1896.
This case was argued before Judge Con
and submitted on May 18th last. Able
lawyers were engaged on either side.
Messrs. Stiles * Holiday and William
Writ Henry appearing for the compiai-
nant. Mr.. L. II. Hyer: and Messrs. Schu-
maker &; Whttlock and James Lyons rep
resenting the Traction Company.
THEY WILL APPEAL.
Judge A. l.. Holiday, OF counsel for
Hyer, was seen by a Times reporter
aoon ,sfter the decision was handed
down. and asked IL bis client would ap-
peal.
'Appeal?" exclaimed the Judge. why.
7 rather think so. am preparing the pa
pers now. You win notice that Judge
Goff snstains our contention that his
court has Jurisdiction in the case. This
was denied by opposing counsel. Judge
Gofr dlsmisscs our bills OF complaint on
the ground that it Is against public policy
that the contract should be enforced.
HIS opinion Is brief, and seems 10 me
10 invite an appeal We have six months
In which 10 fle our appeal. but shall do
so as soon as possible in order that II
may be heard at the October term OF
court The court 10 which this case win
be appealed Is the United States Court
OF Appeals for the Fourth circuit. The
judges who preside in this court are
Chief Justice Melville w. Fuller and
Judges Con and Simonton. In tho
absence OF these judges the Judges OF
the circuits OF North or South Carolina.
West Virginia. or Maryland. are author
-.