Page:The Green Bag (1889–1914), Volume 16.pdf/107

 66

on board the train. This he refused to do and was forcibly ejected. The case pre sented the question whether the plaintiff had any right to resist the conductor when he was ordered to leave the train. It was con ceded that the company's rule requiring the extra fare was a valid and reasonable regula tion and it is sanctioned by statute. The court was very much divided in its opinion. Three judges held that plaintiff was not justi fied in resisting the conductor by force but should have peaceably left the car and relied on his legal remedy, especially in view of the small amount involved. Numerous authori ties are cited in support of this view. The court says, "He virtually invited all the force necessary to remove him. and since no more was applied than was necessary to effect the object he cannot recover either against the conductor or the defendant in an action for assault and battery." Three dissenting judges held that plaintiff had a right to re sist the eviction by force; that no question of good taste was involved; and that the legal rights of the parties, turning on the question of fact as to plaintiff's ability to buy a ticket, had been settled by the verdict of the jury. Judge Cullen who cast the deciding vote takes the middle ground that the plaintiff was justified in forcibly resisting any attempt to remove him in case such an attempt amount ed to an invasion of his legal rights; but also takes the view that the conductor was not obliged to rely on the passenger's word, but was justified in enforcing the rule of the com pany, the extra fare exacted not being be yond the limit fixed by the company's rule. CARRIERS. (INJURY то EXPRESS MESSENGER— CONTRACT RELEASING RAILROAD COMPANY FROM LIABILITY—VALIDITY.) WISCONSIN SUPREME COURT.

In Peterson v. Chicago & N. W. Ry. Co., 96 Northwestern Reporter 532, the plain tiff, an express messenger, sued for per sonal injuries received in the course of his employment, by the alleged negligence of the defendant railroad company. The de fendant relied on a contract between itself

and plaintiff's employer, the American Ex press Company, whereby the latter covenant ed to indemnify defendant from all such lia bilities, and on a further contract between plaintiff and his employer whereby he as sumed all risks of accident, and agreed in turn to indemnify the American Express Company from any damages it was com pelled to pay in consequence of any claim for injuries. The court held that the con tracts were not invalid as contravening pub lic policy. The case is said to be a new one in Wisconsin, but the court relied on a decison by the United States Supreme Court, in Baltimore Ry. Co. v. Yoight, 176 U. S. 498, 20 Supreme Court Reporter 385, 44 L. Ed. 560. in which it was held that an express messenger under similar facts, was not a passenger. COMPETITION. (UNLAWFUL CHARACTER—INDUC ING BREACH OF CONTRACT.) NEW YORK SUPREME COURT.

In the suit of the American Law Rook- Co. v. The Edward Thompson Co., 84 New York Supplement 225, plaintiff sought an injunction to restrain the de fendant from agreeing with subscribers to plaintiff's publication, to indemnify them against claims for damages for breaches of their contracts in declining to receive plain tiff's books and purchasing those of defend ant. The theory of the defence was that plaintiff had no remedy in equity,-—actions at law for breaches of contract, affording ade quate relief. It was said in argument that cases where injunction had been granted to prevent solicitation of a breach of contract lhave involved only contracts for personal services, and that there was no precedent for the injunction sought in the present instance. The court says, however, that if there be no exact precedent to this injunction, none is needed. The defendant is engaged in an at tempt to obtain business which the plaintiff has secured, having no regard to fairness of competition but by a resort to trick and de vice, and that the inadequacy of an action for damages is obvious. The complainant got its injunction.