Year: 1869

Compcting Wires ts be Allowed on the Same


Poles.


From the Chicago Tribune. Jan. 81


Judge Jameson, presiding In the Chancery branch
OF the Superior Court yesterday delivered his opinion
and made his decision in the matter OF the rights OF
the Western Union Telegraph Company and the
Pacific and Atlantic Telegraph Company. as to
the use of the poles erected by the Great Eastern
Railway Company by the latter named telegraph
company. In this case there was bill by the Paci-
nc Company to restrain the tearing Of ts wires
upon these poles There was also cross bill to re-
strain the Paco from stretching Its wires upon the
claimed as its own. The motion was to dissolve the


The facts are that In November, 1884, the western
Union Telegraph Company made contract with the
OF name became the Chicago Columbus and Indiana
central Railway Company by which q set OF tele-
graph poles were stretched along the line OF the rail-
WY, w Ior the use Of the railway company and the
Telegraph company. The agreement, made on the
2lst ds5 Of Noyemssr, among other things provided


s s'fsT 81 ss Inn tesapS co
railroad, and that At places where railroad opora
tor was stationed, where there was agent or the
telegraph company, the railroad employe should act,
TO receive commercial dispatches, 0nehalf OF the
price TO 60 to the two companies, the railroad COM
pany binding itself TO send no commercial dispatches
over It's line from stations where the telegraph COM


Under this contract the Western Union placed its
been In Occupancy % ana use Of them. oons ''''


On the 2sd OF May, 1868, tine Pacific and Atlantic
Telegraph Company sought 70 procure permission or
pany. BY its president, accorded leave provided the
leave did not affect the privileges already granted SO
permission being upon the ground that the telegraph
company should assume the liability Of violation Of
The Pacific ana Atlantic Company ava,led itself
OF the privilege thus accorded and stretched
its wire from point in Indiana into this state,
length, some three feet beneath the brackets OF
the western Union. The TACT was discovered
and the Union line displaced these wires.
tins destruction. Inc injunction was granted and
the Western Union came in with cross bill for an
injunction to restrain the placing OF the wires upon
the poles it claimed TO be ts own The latter njunc
ton was refused. Yhe case went TO the Supreme
Court, where an injunction was issued upon q con-
iesson OF error the Injunction to be decided upon
by this court.


neither Of these touching the merits OF the cause.
The first was that the Injunction mad been granted
IN the supreme Court this inferior court was pre-
cluded from acting. The Court decided this point to
be bad because, as he understood it, the order of
the Superior Court provided for this very consdera.
ton. The second OF these objections was that the
Western Union held an exclusive privilege and that
II license had been granted TO the competing line,
then that by . letter OF later date the railroad


The Court examined the letter claimed 20 be the
act OF revocation and found that 1t not equva-
lent TO such revocation; there was In 1t proniDi
ton OF the act Of stretching the wires upon these
poles-it contained the mere request that the
company should suspend its operations until some
amicable arrangement should be made between the
contending parties; then they gave lawyers con-
struction OF the contract There den al OF the


license and II was for the Court to consider whether
such license had been given, and whether, II It was
SO given, the revocation did not come too late. The
fate, therefore, OF the motion must turn in some
measure upon the force OF the original contract.


The Court proceeded to consider the effect Of the
contract Of the railroad company with the telegraph
corporation, resolving that 1t was illegal by reason
OF the fact that calculated an unwarraned partner
ship between two corporations chartered to carry on
different business and limited In the scope Of their
action Dy the language OF their charters.


But the Court would not dissolve the Injunction
upon these grounds but would consider the relative
situation OF the parties disregarding what he
sidered to be the illegal contract Then 1t to be
considered whether an irreparable damage was to
not think that 1t could be said that monopoly was
be created which should call for the interference OF
chancellor. That question, II II arises at ALL might
justly arise In some subsequent proceeding, and
therefore 1t was only to be considered whether tine
use OF the poles, owned by the railroad company and
agreement by the contending corporation, would
work irreparable injury TO Che existing company.
The Court thought that no such injury could occur
because even III this case statistics had been pro-
dents Of teegraphy. lie thought where these
were shown there could be no dini-
cluty In showing the value OF service so
as to make case at law Such case being able TO
be made IL was not his duty, as Chancellor 70 inter-
fere. The Court thought this was only quarrel be-
II each was courteous 70 the other no irreparable
injury could occur, wherefore he DECIDED that 1t
not his province to act The injunction was ordered
to be dissolved.