Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 2.djvu/474

 BINSMORE V. h., C. & L. ET. 00. 467 �■was then doing over the several railroads, bo far as they were then in existence, which now constitute the property of the Nashville, Chattanooga & St. Louis Kailway Company, which complainant has continued from its organization to the pres- ent time. But it did said business under special contracts. These contracts contained stipulations reserving to the re- spective parties the right, upon giving the notice prescribed therein, to terminate the same. �Eecently, many changes in the ownership and consequently in the management of railroads in Kentucky, Tennessee and contiguous states bave taken place, whereby the Louisville & Nashville Eailroad Company's power has been greatly aug- mented. The managers of this company, by leases and otherwise, have acquiredthe control, it is said, of about 4,000 miles of railroad. The bill alleges that they bave recently organized the Union Express Company, to transact the express business over the several railroad Unes controlled by it ; and that, with the view of supplanting the complainant, and sub- stituting the Union Express Company as express carrier ou said roads, they caused notices to be given complainant ter- minating the contracts under and in virtue of which com- plainant has been carrying over said roads. This charge, however, is denied. But, if such was defendant's purpose, on being better advised the programme iias been abandoned, and defendant now concedes that it cannot legally thus dis- criminate between express carriers ; that if it carries for any it is legally bound to carry for every one offering to do the same sort of business on the same terms. But defendant is, it seems, detennined to exclude complainant from the use of its roads, and now proposes, as the only alternative left for the efEectuation of its determination, to exclude ail express carriers, and do the express business over its road itself. And hence the question is squarely presented, can defendant legally refuse to carry for complainant, and extend to its mes- sengers and agents ail the facilities hitherto extended to it, and undertake and do the express business over its road itself ? This is the question which the f acts present. �In order to a correct solution thereof let us contemplate ����