Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 4.djvu/316

 S02 7EDEBAL lOPOBTEB. �Bwom to by E. B. Angus, whieh was read on the hearing of the original application for injunction, purports to give in some detail what these representations were, and he says H. E. Sargent, the plaintiff's general manager, knew that the defendants intended to cross plaintiff's line, and made no objection to the manner or the point at which said crossing ■was to be made, but at bis own request was furnished by the defendants' chief engineer with a description of said proposed crossing, and a diagram and model of a frog whioh would be required at said point, and that said Sargent then agreed and promised to construct said frog at the shops of said plaintiff at Brainerd, in this state. �The affidavits of the president and secretary of the Com- pany, and of the general manager, denying any consent to the intended crossing, are read in reply, and a copy of a letter ■written by one of the defendants, Stickney, superintendent of construction of the Bamesville & Moorhead Eailroad, dated September 3, 1880, and addressed to H. E. Sargent, general manager of the Northern Pacific Eailroad, is also produeed, purporting to enclose a tracing of the proposed crossing, with a request that the crossing frogs should be made at the plain- tiff's shops and charged to the BarnesviUe & Moorhead Eail- road Company; also a copy of a letter, dated September 9, 1880, addressed to J. J. ïïill, general manager of the St. Paul, Minneapolis & Manitoba Eailway, and one of the principal officers of the BarnesviUe & Moorhead Eailroad Company, by Sargent, stating that in the matter of the BarnesviUe & Moor- head line crossing the Northern Pacific near Moorhead, "I am direeted to forbid your doing so, or entering the Northern Pacific Eailroad Company's right of way, which is a strip 200 feet wide on eaeh side of the main track." �This was certainly a formai revocation of any paroi license to enter upon the Northern Pacific track or right of way, con- ceding that consent or license was given, which is very doubt- ful. Again, the power of the general manager of the North- ern Pacific Eailroad to bind the company in a matter of this kind is not clear, but if he could grant such license, as is claimed by defendants, still the law is well settled that a ����