MARINE GRAIN sz sro0K mxoruxom v. WEST. U. rmi. 00. 23
name of the assignee. Or. Laws, p. 516, § 8; p. 110, § 27. It is not
likely that this contract would be held void here for maintenance.
But it is not necessary for this court to anticipate the action of the
state courts on this question.
This contract was made in California, and in contemplation of law
was to be fullilled or performed there. It has been held in that state
since 1863 that there is no law there against any form of mainte-
nance. Mathewson v. Fitch, and Hofinan v. Vallejo, supra. And the l
_ contract being valid there, is valid here. Story, Conf. Laws, §§ 242,
(1,) 279, 280. - J
But it is contended that the assignment or security taken for the
performance of this contract related to property in Oregon, and could
only be fulhlled or enforced here, and therefore the contract for the
loan ought to be considered as made here, and its validity tested by
the law of Oregon. But the authorities are uniformly otherwise.
Story, Conf. Laws, § 287; De Wohf v. Johnson, 10 Wheat. 367. In
the latter case, Mr. Justice J o11NsoN, speaking for the court, says:
‘f Taking foreign security. does not necessarily draw after it the consequences
that the contract is to be fulfilled where the security is taken. The legal ful-
fillment of a contract of loan on the part of the borroweris repayment of the
money, and the security given is but the means of securing what he has con-
tracted for, which, in the eye of the law, is to pay where he borrows, unless
another place of payment be expressly designated by the contract."
The demurrer is overruled, and the defendants have 20 days in
which to answer.
Miumm Gaim & Sroox Exomuen v. Wmsrmm UN1oN Tm., Co. and
another.
(0'ircuit Court, AZ D. Illinois. October 13, 1884.)
Cmcsoo Bonn or Tn».nn—-Drsmrsu-rron or Rm-cms mr Tmmeanu.
The Chicago board of trade has the right to decide to what persons besides
· its owu members the telegraphic reports of its dealings, collected by its own
employes, shall be distributed.
In Equity.
Bisbee, Ahrens d· Decker, for complainant.
Williams rf Thompson, for defendants.
Bnooomrr, J. The bill in this case was filed for the purpose of ob-
taining an injunction for restraining the defendants from breaking
the connection of the telegraph wires under their control with cer-
tain instruments and tickers in the oihce of complainant; the prin-
cipal allegations being that complainant is a corporation, duly organ-
ized under the laws of Illinois, for the purpose of dealing in grain,
etc., and carrying on a brokerage and commission business in this
city in such commodities, aud is now engaged in such business; that