32 FEDERAL REPORTER.
petition was resisted, and, after hearing, denied. In my opinion this
is not an adjudication that answers the present bill. The merits ol
the claim as a liability of the estate were not passed on. The com-
plainant did not in fact become a party to the proceeding by which
the administration of the estate was closed without the allowance of
her claim. The object of her petition was that she might become a
party to the proceeding under the administration, so as to be per-
mitted to present and prove her claim. This was refused, the court
in effect deciding that she should not be allowed to become a party
to the proceeding in that court. She is not, therefore, bound by the
settlement and closing of the administration. It follows that there
must be a decree for the complainant according to the prayer of the
bill.
Biurmona & O. B. Co. and another v. Ammo Expense C0}
(Circuit Court, E. D. Missouri. October 21, 1884.)
Common CARRIERS—PAYMENT or Aarscsnsn-r Guiness.
lt is not the duty of common carriers to pay antecedent charges on freight
tendered to them by connecting carriers, even where it is customary to do so.
. In Equity.
The bill states that it is the usage and custom among express com-
panies, known to and heretofore acted upon by the defendant and by
all other express companies, "that when a package of express matter
is tendered to the connecting express company it receives the same and
pays the tendeping express company the charges which have accrued
thereon for the services rendered by it, and thereupon transmits said
parcel to another express company, or the point of destination, if the
same is reached by it, and collects the same, with its own charges,
from the consignee," and that the defendant and other specihed ex-
press companies, with which the complainants "have heretofore con-
ducted a very large business upon the basis of the usage aforesaid,
have combined, confederated, and conspired for the purpose of de-
stroying the express business of your orators, and for that purpose
have suddenly, from diderent points, given verbal and other notices
to the agents of your orators that on and after the fifteenth day of
October, 1884, the said companies would not advance charges on ex-
press matter transferred to them by your orators." The other ma-
terial facts are stated in the opinion of the court.
Garland Pollard, for complainant.
Ramsey, Maxwell ct Matthews and Samuel Breckenridge, for de-
fendant.
Tasur, J., (orally.) This is an application for an injunction to re·
strain the defendants from refusing to receive packages in the same
illeported by Benj. F. Rex, Esq., of the St. Louis bar.