482 TEDEBAIi BEFOBTEB. �8. Since the purchase by said laat-named company (defend- ant herein) it bas been using and operating the railroad, and bas fuUy ratified, sanotioned, and confirmed the contract made and entered into between the plaintiff and St. Joseph & Denver City Eailroad Company, and received and enjoyed ail the benefits and advantages of said contract that had been received and enjoyed by the St. Joseph & Deuver City Eailroad Company down to the time the new corporation, now owning and oontrolling the same, was formed. �9. The defendants bave combined and confederated to- getber for the purpose of defrauding the plaintiff of said line of telegrapb, and of the property and -wires connected tbere- ■with, and did, about the twenty-seventb of February, 1880, unlawfully and with force seize the telegraph line at a point in Donipban county, Kansas, etc., and did forcibly deprive plaintiff of ail possession, in benefit and control, of said tele- grapb wires and batteries, etc. �The prayer is for an injunction to restrain defendant» from preventing plaintiff reconnecting the wires that have been eut and severed as aforesaid, and restoring the connec- tion whicb bas been severed, and from preventing the plain- tiff from using the said line and wires, and enjoying ail the benefits to whicb plaintiff is entitled under said contract of August 10, 1871, and from interfering with plaintiff in tba use of said telegraph and wires, and from the exercise of rights heretofore olaimed and exercised under said contract. �Prior to the removal of this cause from the state court an injunction was granted. The defendants demur, and also move to dissolve the injunction. It will be sufficient, for the present, to consider the case upon the demurrer. �1. It is said that the charter of the St. Joseph & Denver City Eailroad Company expired by law in 1877, and, inas- much as the contract was to run for twenty-five years, or until 1896, it was beyond the power of the corporation, and Toid. It is not necessary to determine the question whether such a contract is void in toto, or only void as to that part of the contract whicb, by its terms, is to be performed after the expiration of the charter, because, in so far as it bas been ����
