ARGUED AND DETEBMINED S
ur rm:
O O • 0 O {
éitmtcd .§’tutz¤ Qtrvrmt mul glmtmt Qtnmctt.
Cmnrmn Tausr Co. and another v. Wsmsn, Sr. L. & P. Br. Co. and
others}
·(0ireuit Court, E. D. Missouri. September 24, 1885.)
1. Rasrmxmmc Okuma ·ro Pnorscr Tnmsmssaizs. I
This court will not protect a naked trespasser in his trespass by a restraining
order.
2. Pnovrsronu. INJ¤Nc·rroN-—-Ex Psnrn APPLICATION wrruour No*r1cm—PnAo-
mr .
ggmble, that where an ea: parte application for a provisional injunction is made
without notice to the other party, the injunction will not he granted unless
it is shown by affidavits or otherwise that if the injunction is not granted irre-
parable mischief will happen before hearing can be had on notice given.
In Equity. .
Motion to dissolve restraining order against D. R. Francis, mayor
of the city of St. Louis, and others, in the matter of the St. Louis
Transfer Company. The order restrained the mayor of St. Louis,
and others, from tearing up certain tracks which, as it now appears,
have been wrongfully laid by the receivers of the Wabash, St. Louis
& Pacific Railway Company on land dedicated to public use as a
street.
Solon Humphreys, Thos. O. Tutt, W. H. Blodgett, and H. S. Priest,
for receivers.
Leverttt Belt, for D. B. Francis.
Hitchcock, Madill ot Ftnkelnburg, for the St. Louis Transfer Co. and
another. _
Tnsu, J ., (orally.) This case stands before the court at present
in this attitude: that this property having been dedicated to public
llleported by Benj. F. Rex, Esq., of the St. Louis bar. A
v.25F,no.1—1