SOUaHEUS iiXPXiESS CO. V. ST. h., I. M. & S. BY. co. 869 ���Southern Express Co. v. St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern �Ey. Co.* �{Circuit Court, E. D. Missouri. March 25, 1882.) �In Equity. Final decree. �The opinion in the above-entitled cause was delivered on the twenty-first day of February, 1882. A full report will be found at page 210, ante. �The following final decree was rendered in the case, by Judge Mc- Crary, on the twenty-flfth day of March, 1882 : �FINAL DECREE. �And now this day corne the parties aforesaid, and by their counsel, then and there present, bring on this cause to be heard on the pleadings and proofs, and the same were thea and there presented to the court, and the argument of counsel for the respective parties is heard, and the said cause is tlien and there submitted, and due deliberation having been thereupon had, — �It is by the court ordered, adjudged, and deereed as tollows: �(1) ihat the express business, as fully described and shown in the record, is a branch of the carrying trade that bas, by the neeessities of commerce and the usages of those engaged in transportation, become known and recognized so as to require the court to take notice of the same as distinct from ordinary transportation of the large mass of freight usually carried on steam-boats and railroads. �(2) That it has become the law and usage, and is one of the neeessities of the express business, that the property confided to an express company for transportation should be kept, while in transit, in the immediate cliarge of the messenger or agent of sueh express company. �(3) That to refuse permission to such messengers or agents to accompany such property on the steam-boats or railroads on which it is to be carried, and to deny to them the right to the custody of the property while so carried, would be destructive of the express business, and of the rights which the pub- lic have to the use of such steam-boats and railroads for the transportation of such property so under the control of such messeugers or agents. �(4) That the defendant, its offlcers, agents, and servants, have no right to open or inspect any of the packages or express matter which may be offered to it for transportation by the plaintifE's company, or to demand a knowledge of the contents thereof, nor to refuse transportation thereof, unless such in- spection be granted or such knowledge be aiiorded. �(5) That it is the duty of the defendant to carry the express matter of the plaintifE's company, and the messengers or agents in charge thereof, at a just and reasonable rate of compensation, and that such rate of compensation is to be found and established as a unit, and is to inelude as well the transporta- �*Beported by B. F. Rex, Esq., of the St. Louis bar. ��� �
