warms v. onnoou RY. at mv. co. 23
pany doing an express business over its lines of transportation, the
defendant, as to all other companies doing such business thereon,
has thereby made it an absolute express facility, to which all are
equally entitled. As was said in Wells v. O. at O. Ry. Oo. 18 Fmo.
Bar. 672.
"The defendant is bound to furnish the express company with reasonable
facilities for the conduct of its business, and if there is more than one com-
pany doing business over its road it must furnish equal facilities to all. To
deal fairly and justly in this respect, and according to its obligation, the do-
fendant must serve the express companies equally, and neither directly nor in-
directly favor the one nor hinder the other. Whatever terms or favors it ex-
tends to one, it must extend to the other, because that other becomes thereby
entitled to them. No discrimination can be allowed; but equality of service,
conditions and compensation is the fundamental rule governing the business
or transaction."
This case is also referred to generally as authority in the premises.
The two cases are in principle, if not in instance, exactly alike. Dis-
obedience to an injunction is a contempt of court which may be pun-
ished by nne or imprisonment. Atlantic G. P. C0. v. Dittmar P. M.
Co. 9 Fan. Bar. 316; section 725, Rev. St. Either the corporation _
committing the contempt may be punished, or the agent through
whom it acts. U. S. v. Memphis é L. R.`R. Oo. 6 Fan. Bm?. 237. i
The purser and conductor are discharged. It does not appear that
they were ever served with the injunction or made aware of its terms
in this respect. The defendant corporation and its manager are ad- '
judged to be guilty of a contempt, as alleged in the petition herein,
by the violation of the provisional injunction heretofore issued in
this case in pursuance of the order of this court made and entered
— on March 19, 1883. But as this is a proceeding between the parties
to the suit, having a remedial purpose rather-than a punitive one,
the matter will now be referred to the master to ascertain what loss,
expense, or injury the plaintiff has sustained by reason of the mis-
conduct of the defendant, with a view of enabling the court to im-
pose, by way of punishment, a corresponding penalty on the defend-
ant for the benefit of the plaintiif; and as to any further proceeding
the matter is continued until the coming in of the master’s report.
Craig v. Fisher, supra; Fischer v. Hayes, 6 Fm). Bar. 63; Macaulay v.
White S. M. Co. 9 Fan. Rav. 698; In re Mullee, 7 Blatchf. 23.