Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 3.djvu/430

 \7. V. TELEGRAPH 00. V. V. P. RY. 00. 428 ���Thb Whbtebn Union Tblbgbaph Company v. Thb Union Pa- oiFio Eailway Company and othera. �(Circuit Court, D. Kania». July 27, 1880.) �1. CoRPOBATioN — Power to Assign FhanOhibk turoBR Aot ov Cou- �GHBiss ov JOT.T 2, 1864.— The United Btates Telegraph Company had power to assign and transfer to plaintill its right, derived from act of congress of July 2, 1864, to construct a Une of telegraph along the line of the Eansas Pacifie Railroad, and the amended Mil shows that such assignment was duly executed. �2. Ii/LBOAi/ Contraot dues not Afi^bcit Prbviouslt- Aoqotrbd Intbrest �IN Samb Pbopbbtt.— Where, prier to October 1, 1866, the plaintifE had acquired an interest in tha telegraph line and property in con- troversy, that interest was not afifected by a con tract made on that day for a lease of the line, even though that contract be hçld void. �8. Bame — Pkopertt Acquikbd undeb an iLiiEQAi. CoNTKACT. — Even if the contract of October 1, 1866, is held void, the property accumulated or constructed under it must, as between the parties, be disposed of according to equity, and the court will not refuse to deal with that property on the ground that it was acquired under an illegal contract ; foUowing Plantera' Bank v. Union Bank, 16 Wall. 483, and Brook» v. Martin, 2 Wall. 70. �4, Bamb— RiGHTS so AcQUiBED wiLi, BB Peotected.— It is, therefore, lield, independently of the question of the validity of the said con- tract, that the plaintiff has, according to the allegations of the amended bill, an interest in the property in dispute, which a court of equity will protect, and defendants have not the right to seize it by force and without process. �6. Spbcific Performancb — Injunction.— That al though a court ôf equity will not decree the specifie performance of a contract requiring continuons duties, involving the exercise of Personal labor and culti- vated judgment, yet the violation of such a contract may be enjoined, �6. Pakol Agrbbment to Modipt Writtbn Contract. — The question of the validity and effect of the paroi agreement, set out in the amended bill, to annul and abrogate the vicions clause in the written contract of October 1, 1866, is reserved for f urther argument and future deter- mination. �In Equity. Demurrer to Amended Bill. �C. Beckwith, WiUiams e Thompson and Geo. R. Peck, for complainants. �I. P. Usher, A. C. WiUiams and Everest d Waggener, for respondents. ����