Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 4.djvu/495

 SOVTHEBN EXPBESS 00. V. L. <& S. B. CO. 181. �BotSfTHEEN ExPEESS Co. ». L. & N. R. Co. {Cirevit OovH, M. D. Tennessee. , 1880.) �1. Raix-roads— Express Business. — A railroad cannot discriminato In Ita �own îavor in the conduct of the express business. �2. Samb— liiVAi CoMFAST — SUPERVISION. — A railroad cannot exercise a �supervision over a rival company in the conduct of the express busi- ness. �S. Samk -ExPBBBS Compant^Rates — NoTicB.— An express company is entitled to some notice from a competing railroad of an intended change in rates and privileges in the conduct of the express business. �Ket, D. J. In the investigation of this case I have corne to no conclusions different from those announoed by the cir- cuit judge of this district in another controversy between the same parties in respect to the relations, duties, and gen- erai course of dealing between railroads and express com- panies. I am content to foUow his rulings, so far as they are relevant to this suit, and shall enter upon no reiteration of the doctrines he bas asserted.* The conduct of the express business is no part of the duty of railroads. Until within a recent period there bas been, in this country, no effort on the part of railroads to carry it on. They bave been content not only to permit this business to be done over their lines by others, but bave fostered it, by the terms allowed and oppor- tunities given, until it bas grown into a distinct, separate, and organized branch of general business, different in its methods and characteristics from the natural and legitimate transactions of railroads. �Expressage bas grown into a public necessity. The idea cannot now be entertained that railroads direotly, or by indi- rection, can trammel or destroy express enterprises by exclud- ing express companies from their lines, or by fettering them with unjust regulations or unfair discriminations. Nor can �*8ee Dinmiore v. Louisville, Oinànnati e Lexington Ry. Go. 2 Fbd. Rbp. 465. See, also, Dirimnore v. ZouisviUe, Nmo Albany d Chicago B. Co. 3 Fed^ Ebp. 593. �▼.4,no.6— 31 ����