MARKET NAT. BANK W. HOFHKIHER. 13
at the instance or for the benefit of the Belt Railroad & Stock-yard
Company, but solely at the instance and for the beneht of the Western
Union Telegraph Company. Even if, therefore, the Belt Ra11road &
Stock-yard Company, in a suit in its own name and for its own bene-
fit, might enjoin such use of its land by the defendant until the r1ght
should be condemned and paid for, in accordance with the constitution
of the state, the relief ought not to be granted in this action.
Qumre, whether or not, as against the Belt Road & Stock·yard Com-
pany, the Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Company, under its lease, has
not the implied right to carry a telegraph wire or wires into its office,
in the building in question, for purposes incident to its own business;
and if so, to erect on the lands and right of way of that company the
necessary poles. If it had these rights, as I am inclined to believe it
had, it could employ (as in fact it did employ) the defendant tele-
graph company to do the work for it, and this would be a complete
defense to the action as predicated upon the constitutional provision
against the appropriation of property without compensation first duly
assessed and paid, and leave the case to stand wholly upon the con·
tract for an exclusive privilege, which, as we have seen, cannot be
permitted.
The application for a temporary restraining order is therefore over-
ruled. ' r
MARKET NAT. BANK and others v. Hornmmse and others. ·
(Oircuit Court, EL D. Virginia. December, 1884.)
1. Assreismnnrs Fon Bannsrr on Cnnm*rons—How FAR VA1.r1>.
A,deed of assignment may be valid as to bona fide debts which it secures, and
void as to fictitious and fraudulent debts attempted to be secured thereby.
2. SAMn—PAnrNnRsnr1> Assrenimzur.
An insolvent partnership makes a deed of assignment of specidc property to
a trustee, which provides for the payment equally and without preference of
certain alleged creditors named in Schedule A, with the amounts purporting
to be due them, and provides that, aftcr the payment in full of the creditors in
Schedule Aof the amounts stated to be due them, certain creditors in Schedule
B shall be paid the amounts therein stated to be due them. Held: (1) That
the deed conveyed integral amounts to a series of integer creditors, and its pro-
visions were several by the terms of the grant; (2) that as it did not provide
for the contingency of some of the debts in Schedule A being fictitious, which
they in fact proved to be, the amounts which were intended for them were not
disposed of by the deed, remained in the grantor as to attacking creditors, and
- were subject to their claims.
.5. Sum—Pnns·mnzNcns—Cor<srnncries on Assremmnr. A
That deeds of assignment giving preferences are to be construed strictly, and
courts of equity will not interpolate phrases to carry out a possible intent to
give preferences otherwise than as expressed. V ,
4. SAME—SETTING Asmm ABSIGNMENT—EFFECT. V
That a successful attack by creditors upon a deed of assignment does not en-
large its operation as to those who claim under it. ` ~ ’