212 FEDERAL REPORTER. �and mp'^'if':)7->rs of the Southern Express Company by the same trains, and to the same accommodation, as it may transport its own express matter; that it bG required to transport express matter for statutory tolls and compensation, as provided by law ; that defendant may be required to make a reasonable rebate or reduction from its charges to the Southern Express Company, to be flxed by decree of court, by reason of its performance of accessorial service as specifled. �(4) That a permanent injunction may issue to the same purport and effect as is prayed in regard to a preliminary injunction. �The defendant, in its answer, denies the material allegations of the bill, and avers : �That since the first of J une, A. D. 1880, it has formed and organized an ex- press department of its roaid, and has been and is now receiving and trans- porting over its lines, and delivering, freight commonly Icnown as express freight, as it has a right to do ; that the express business is a legitimate busi- ness of defendant ; that it can serve the publie without the intervention of the Southern Express Company, and can serve it as well, and that it is unjust to the stockholders of the company to permit a third party to make use of the property of defendant and the services of its employes to reap the profit for the transportation of freight which belongs to it ; that the compensation it has received from the plaintifC for transportation over its Unes during the term of the existence of the eontract was inadequate for the service performed; that the conduct of complainant in the management of its business, its inter- vention between defendants and its customers, its taking a large amount of freight which was not properly express freight ; its continued violation of its contracts under which it was permitted to do an express business, and its concealment and withholding true and correct reports of the weights of ex- press freights transported over defendant's line of road, occasioned great dam- age to defendant, and compelled the termination of said eontract ; that as a common carrier it owes to complainant no other duty than to any other per- son desiring to transport freight over its road ; that defendant does not elaim the right to exclude the transportation of express matter of complainant over its road, and has always been willing, and is now willing, to transport any express matter in spaces in its cars selected by itself, and under the supervis- ion, care, and control of its own employes, and denies that complainant has any light to have allotted to itself any particular space in defendant's cars, or to permit its messengers to take charge of its express freight. �The plaintiff filed a general replication in the usual form. Sub- stantially the same points of law were raised by the pleadings in the other cases. A preliminary injunction was granted in the case of the Southern Express Co. v. St. L., I. M. d S. Ry. Co., November 6, 1880. The case came up for final hearing before Miller and McCraby, JJ., at St. Louis, Missouri, on the seventh of Febraary, A. D. 1882. Attorneys for the parties to all the above-entitled causes were present, and in pureuance of an agreement between them all of said causes were ��� �
