i 12 ‘FEDERAL nnpoarmn.
Wmsrmm Umor: Tan. Co. and others v. Bxmmomu & 0. Tm.. Co.
V (Circuit Court, D. Indiana. 1885.)
Tm.ncizAi>n C0l\IPANIES—]1lXCLUSI¥’E Pinvrrrzcns-Puismc Pomcr.
A contract granting any person or company the exclusive privilege to do
telegrapliing upon or along any railroad is contrary to public policy, and void.
This doctrine applied to Belt liailroad & Stock-yards at Indianapolis.
· Application for Temporary Restraining Order.
McDonald, Butler rf Mason, for complainants.
Harrison, Miller et Elam, for defendants.
Woons, J. Upon the facts, as deduced from bill and answer, it
seems to me that the contract between the plaintiffs, in so far as it
stipulates for an exclusive right on the part of the Western Union
to do telegraphing business at and from the stock-yards, and espe-
cially in and from "the principal office" of the Union Railroad Trans-
fer & Stock-yard Company, is illegal as being against public policy.
To say that the cases in which this doctrine has been enunciated do
not apply, or that the doctrine itself does not apply, to a contract for
an exclusive right in respect to av particular building, such as the one
in question is shown to be, would, as it seems to me, be unreasona-
_ ble. Of the particular rooms, or parts of the building, leased to it,
the Western Union Telegraph Company is, of course, entitled to the
exclusive occupation and use; but, in respect to other parts, or rooms,
of which it acquired and attempted toacquire no use or right of pos-
session, the effort to restrict or limit the uses to which they should be
put by others in competition with that company is clearly obnoxious
to the doctrine, now well established, that an exclusive privilege to do
_ telegraphing upon or along any railroad cannot be given to any per-
son or company. W. U. Tel. Oo. v. Amer. W. Tel. Oo. 9 Biss. 72;
W. U.iTel. Oo. v. Burlington at S. W. Ry. Oo. 3 McCrary, 130; S. C.
11 FED. REP. 1; W. U. Tel. C0. v. Baltimore at O. Tel. Oo. 19 FED.
REP. 660; Pensacola Tel. C0. v. W. U. Tcl. Oo. 96 U. S. 1; W. U.
Tel. Oo. v.·Amer. U. Tel. Co. 65 Ga. 160; S. C. 38 Amer. Rep. 781.;
Rev. St. § 3964. o
If, therefore, there is any ground upon which the injunction prayed
for can issue, it must be because the defendant has, without right
previously acquired, entered upon the right of way and lands of the
defendant, the Union Railway, Transfer, etc., Co., and erected its poles
thereon. But of this wrong, if it be a wrong, for which an injunction
might issue, the Western Union Telegraph Company, for thereason
already stated, either by itself or jointly with its co-plaintiff, has no
right to complain; and in respect to its co—plaintiff the answer shows
that its name as plaintiff has been used by the telegraph company
under and by virtue of the provision to that effect in the contract be=
tween the two companies, and that otherwise the suit is not prosecuted