warns v. osueon nr. a mv. co. 21
Sheridan and Airlie, in Oregon; that until October 1, 1883, the de-
fendant allowed the plaintiff to have the services of pursers and con-
ductors on said vessels and road, to take charge of its treasure-box
and letter·bag, and deliver and receive all matter transported therein,
as its agents and messengers along the routes traveled by them, for
which it has and is willing to pay a reasonable. compensation and
indemnify the defendant against any loss by reason of the carriage
of such express matter; and that since said date the defendant had
refused to allow or furnish the plaintiff these facilities, contrary to
the injunction herein, and notwithstanding it is furnishing the same ·
to the Northern Pacific Express Company, a corporation, the stock
of which is largely owned by the persons who control the defendant.
· The order was made as asked for, and on December 4th the man-
ager of the defendant answered for it and himself, admitting the
facts alleged in the petition, and stating that he did not understand
that the defendant was required bythe injunction to allow its pursers
and conductors to act as the agents and messengers of the plaintiff;
that acting upon this impression and the advice of counsel that such
services were not included in the injunction, and were not express
facilities anyhow, he had directed the pursers and conductors of the
defendant not to act as the agents and messengers of the plaintiff;
and that the respondent did not intend to violate or disobey the in-
junction of the court. Only two of the pursers and conductors--C.
A. Gould, of the narrow gauge, and John B. Maynard, of the steam-
ship Columbia-appear to have been served with the order to show
cause, and they answered jointly, saying that the injunction was not
served on them, and they were not aware of its terms, and did not
suppose that it required them to act as agents of the plaintiff, but ,
T that in refusing to do so they did not intend to disobey the injunc-
tion, and were simply acting in obedience to the orders of their su-
perior. .
The scope and meaning of the phrase "express facilities" does not
admit of absolute definition. Its force and effect must often depend
on circumstances, of which local usage, theconduct, and conven-
ience of the parties may be important considerations. For instance,
take the service which the lplaintilf claims at the hands of the purser
of the steam-ship. It consists simply of receiving the plaintiffs
treasure—box and letter-bag in his office, on the vessel, and putting it
in the safe and keeping it there until the arrival of the vessel at
Portland or San Francisc0,`as thecase may be, and there deliver-
ing the same, on board, to the agentof the plaintiff. Thereby the
defendant incurs neither expensenor risk, and the plaintin saves the
hire and transportation of a special agent between these ports.
The inconvenience to the defendant is nothing, while the inconven-
ience-to the plaintiff is very considerable. It is an arrangement
which commends itself at once, as reasonable and well calculated to
promote the conduct of the _business in which the parties are engaged,