Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 3.djvu/610

 DINSUOBE V. L., N. A. Se C. B. CO. 603 �intendent of express, on the first and second days of July, 1880, and his refusai to receive the same for transportation unless the agent of the Adams Company tendering them would open them for examination by said Eose, to the end that he might make a schedule of their contents. Also of the tender by th« Adams Company's agent of the safe and chest, on the second day of July, to A. C. Gowk, couductor, Oscar Board, agent at New Albajiy, and Harry Eose, local express agent at New Albany, and the refusai by each of them to receive the same, unless they should first be opened for inspection for the purposes mentioned. As to these trans- actions of the first and second of July the affidavit accords with the allegations of the supplemental bill. �The affidavit also set forth the f acts alleged in the original bill as to the arrangement between the Adams and American Express Companies for the interchange of through express matter to Greencastle,. upon such terms that such through express matter was carried by the two companies at one rea- sonable through rate; but it stated that since the first day of July, 1880, the defendant, while carrying such through ex- press matter by its own express at a reduced through rate, has exacted of each of these two express companies, respeot- ively, local rates of freight between the place of shipment of express matter and Greencastle, and the same local rates upon ail such matter between Greencastle and the place of destination, so that the aggregate charges between the two companies for such through carriage greatly exceed the rate at which defendant performed such carriage for shippers by its own express, and materially exceed the aggregate compen- sation received by these two companies for the service; the effect being that each express company is required to pay to the defendant, for the railroad freight between Greencastle and the place of shipment and delivery, as the case may be, materially more than it receives from its employer for the same service, and also for ail its accessorial service. �A rule was granted against the parties named to show cause why they should not be attached for contempt of the interlocutory order of injunction. Upon the return day of ����