Page:Henry Osborn Taylor, A Treatise on the Law of Private Corporations (5th ed, 1905).djvu/293

 PART III.] ACTS BEYOND THE CORPORATE POWERS. [§ 309. equally void is a contract giving exclusive advantages to certain shippers over all others. 1 " Every common carrier must carry for all to the extent of his capacity, without undue or unreason- able discrimination either in charges or facilities." 2 of its railroad was held valid; there oeing several other lines of railroads between the important points on the road, and no necessity for construct- ing a telegraph line along it. West- ern Union Tel. Co. v. Atlantic and Pac. Tel. Co., 7 Biss. 367; see, also, Western Union Tel. Co. v. Chicago, etc., R. R. Co., 86 111. 246. Contra, Western Union Tel. v. Burlington, etc., R'y Co., 3 McCrary, 130. See Atlantic and Pac. Tel. Co. v. Union Pac. R. R. Co., 1 McCrary, 541. Compare Wright v. Ryder, 36 Cal. 342; Morris Run Coal Co. v. Barclay Coal Co., 68 Pa. St. 173. 1 Messenger v. Pennsylvania R. R. Co., 37 N. J. L. 531; S. C, 36 N. J. L. 407; Chicago and A. R. R. Co. v. Suffern, 129 111. 274. The contract of a common carrier to allow draw- backs on freight to a party, and not to allow them to any other person, is against public policy and void. Stewart v. Lehigh Valley R. R. Co., 38 N.J. L. 505. An injunction can be had to restrain a railroad com- pany from agreeing not to transport goods at rates fixed by law. Rogers' Locomotive Works v. Erie R'y Co., 20 N. J. Eq. 379. But, though it seems a common carrier can in no event charge more than a reasonable price, it is held that he may charge less to one person than to another: Fitchburg R. R. Co. v. Gage, 12 Gray (Mass.), 393; Johnson v. Pensacola, etc., R. R. Co., 16 Fla. 623, 667; Ra- gan v. Aiken, 9 Lea (Tenn.), 609; Munhall v. Pennsylvania R. R. Co., 92 Pa. St. 150; Ex parte Benson, 18 S. C. 38; Houston, etc., R'y Co. v. Rust, 58 Tex. 98. See Atchison, T. 18 and S. F. R. R. Co. v. Denver and N. O. R. R. Co., 110 U. S. 667. A rail- road company is under a duty to transport merchandise on equal terms for all parties, where the carry- ing for some shippers at a lower price than for others will create monopoly or destroy the business of those less favored. Scofield v. R'y Co., 43 Ohio St. 571; Brundred v. Rice, 49 Ohio St. 640. So a contract to grant privileges for the withdrawal of opposition, based on public grounds, to proposed legislation concerning a railroad, is void. Pingry v. Washburn, 1 Aiken (Vt. ), 264. Otherwise if the opposi- tion rests on private grounds. Low v. Conn. P. R. R. Co., 46 N. H. 284. As to contracts to locate stations, see § 162. 2 Atchison, T. and S. F. R. R. Co. v. Denver and N. O. R. R. Co., 110 U. S. 667, 674. Ace. Root v. L. I. R. Co., 114 U. S. 300; Indian River S. Co. v. East Coast Trans. Co., 28 Fla. 387, 435; State v. C. N. O., etc., R. R. Co., 47 Ohio St. 130. Contracts between railroad and telegraph com- panies, vesting in the latter the ex- clusive right to use the railroad's right of way for telegraph poles, etc., are void, as against public policy, being in restraint of trade and tend- ing to create monopolies. Railroad companies cannot convey to another company for its exclusive interests, and in antagonism to the public in- terests, property acquired by the railroad company through its right of eminent domain. Western Union Tel. Co. v. American Union Tel. Co., 65 Ga. 160. See § 350 ami notes. 273