Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 4.djvu/498

 \ �484 FEDERAL REPORTER. �and requîred to exercise this supervision over and make these demands of the agents of the plaintiff, -while the plain- tiff or its agents had no corresponding or reciprocal right or privilege. It was the agents of defendant's express Com- pany that were required to thus supervise the plaintifiE's transactions. The first order assumes the right of defend- ant's express Company to demand and require an inspection of the safes, chests, and packages of the plaintiff, and the direction given, that if such inspection is refused, or the required memorandum furnished, the fact is to be noted on the tally sheet, indicates that further action of some sort ia to be predicated upon this refusai. Nor does the order of October 12th oppose or deny this conclusion, but only directs that the chests must be carried notwithstanding the refusai; but, as the superintendent states, defendant's express agents •were to place a value on the contents of the safes which they were not permitted to inspect, and of whose contents no mem- orandum was furnished-. Without stopping to inquire whether the railroad, as such, could demand and enforce this supervis- ion legally, it is enough to say that, aceording to the views herein expressed, it had no power to authorize and require that the rival and competitor of the plaintiff along and over its lines should exercise this superior prerogative over the business of plaintiff. �Again. It appears from the allegations of the bill, which, as to this, are not contravened or denied, that defendant took charge of these lines in June last, or before, and carried the agents and freight of plaintiff at the same rates and upon the Bame terms as had been done by defendant's predecessors, and continued to do so without objection or question untU, without any notice, the order of sixth of October was iesued and fare was demanded for plaintiff's messengera. Defend- ant says that it had no notice of the co^tract with its prede- vBessors, yet it is reasonable to infer that some understanding, express or implied, had been existing between the parties in relation to the matter by which the rates had been fixed, and the terms and pj.ivileges established; and the continuance of ����