ouusoomn v. nonsr. 11
the shipper shall desire to consign, to said complainants yards,’anVd transport
and deliver the same upon the same terms and in the same manner that stock
is received and transported and delivered unto the United Railroads Stock,
Yards Company, upon giving bond in the sum of $20,000. "
It may be noted, as apart of the history of this controversy, that the Ma-
rietta & Cincinnati Railroad Company, operating the Cincinnati & Baltimore
Railroad, had established a switch to the United Railroads Stock-Yards, and
made that its live—stock station for the city of Cincinnati, and refused to
establish or permit the establishment of a switch to, or station at, the stock-
yards of the complainant in theprincipal case. That being the only road
reaching the stock-yards of the complainant he was practically cut off from
access to or from the railroads of the city. The Marietta do Cincinnati Bail-
road Company was in the hands of receivers appointed by the common pleas
court of Ross county, Ohio. An application was made to Judge Baxter to
compel the receivers to afford the complainant equal facilities with those
accorded his competitor. As the receivers had been appointed by the state
court, and its road and property were therefore under its control, his honor
· refused the application and remitted the complainant to the state court for .
redress. Afterwards application was made to the Ross county 00l11'li, and,
after full hearing, an order entered directing the receivers to afford to the
_ complainant equal facilities with those granted to the rival yard. For a re- . l
port of the decision of the Ross county common pleas court, which was deliv-
ered by Judge Minshall, see 7 Cincinnati Weekly Law Bull. 295.
See, onthe subject of railroad discrimination, Hays v. Pennsylvania Oo. 12
` FED. REP. 309, and note thereto. Also the Empress Company Cases, before
Justice Miller and Judge McCrary,,10 Fun. Rnr. 210, 869.—[Rm•. `
Dxmsooms and others v. Honsr and others. .
A (Circuit Uourt, W. D. Tennessee. June_21, 1882.)
1. Juniors:. B.u.m—R1em· or Pmzcxusnn ·ro Dnmxn Goon Trun-Wn.:.,
At e saleof lend at public auction by an otllcer of the court, where the title .
to the land was acquired by the defendant under the following devise in a will :
“ I bequeath tomy daughter [the lend ln question] for her and her children’s
gole and separate use, free from any claim or control of her husband,"-and the
purchaser at the sale declined to comply with the terms of his purchase, alleg-
ing a defect of title, held, theta title acquired by such a devisee is not of such i
clear and indisputeble character as the purchaser has s right to demand, and
that e court of equity will relieve the purchaser from complying with his bid
made at the sale. ‘ _ V l · V
V2. S.nm—B.4ms-PnAc1·1cm—R.nssnm.` V ‘ .
That under such circumstances,) and after an investigation of the true by the
master, the court will order s resale of such interest inthe land n the defend.
. ants to the suit may have. ii
iIDEql1lCy. ,, ~ 2   ,  A
)@