2 FEDERAL REPORTER.
Mrssoum PAc. RY. Co. ·v. TnxAs & PAc. RY. Co.
(Oircuit Oourt, E.  January 14, 1887.)
1. RAILROAD C0m1>Am·as--·DrscnmmArro¤ nnrwnnn Connnorme LINES—·TEXLS
PAc1r·ro RAILWAY COMPANY—¥MISSOUR1 Psourrc RAILWAY COMPANY.
Under the charter of the Texas Pacino Railway Company, (16 U. S. St. 578,)
and the Texas act of May 2, 1873, gra r ting land to it, which forbid discrimina-
tion _by it against any connecting or intersecting road, and the latter of_wh1ch
_ forbgdsittto enter into any combination in the_nature of a partnership with any
_ __ railroad in the state running parallel with it, or in thesame direction, that W1 1
give thelatter control of rates on it, a pooling and tranic arrangement made
by the receivers of the road, or of its successor, the Texas & Pacino Railway
Company, with the Missouri Pacific Railway Company, which has 200 miles
of road parallel to its road in»Texas, relating to business interchanged in Texas,
and giving the Missouri Pacino a preference in rates. is illegal. and w1ll_be or-
dere to be abrogpted upon objection made by other lines connecting with the
Texas & Pacino ailway Company’s road in _ ouisiana, although the receivers
are willing to make the same arrangement with the objecting companies, if
they will urnish their road with the same amount of business under the same
conditions, and although the arrangement is satisfactory to the tranlc agents
of the objecting companiesgand operates to the benefit of the property in the
receivers hands. ,
2. BAME——TRAFFIC Ass0c1A·r1oN.   ‘
_ Likewise membership in a tranic association is improper, and the receivers
‘ will be ordered to withdraw therefrom, if the association has power to make
discriminating rates for or against the Texas & Pacinc Railway Company.
 1¤Eq¤¤v· F [ , A A  
‘ Monk G; Stubbs, forpetitioner: · l
W. WZ Howe, for respondent.
PARDEE, J. In the matter of the intervening petition of the Vicks- _
burg, Shreveport & Pacino Railroad Company, and of Frank S. Bond,
receiver of the Vicksburg & Meridian Railroad Company, the petition-
ers allegethat they are operating a connecting railway line of the Texas
. &,Pacinc `Railway lines, and the gist of their complaint, as a basis of re-A
lief,Q is that the receivers of the Texas & Pacino Railway Company, ap-
pointed by this court in the above-entitled suit,~_to operate and manage
the lines of the said company, have been and are discriminating against
the lines operated by petitioners, " by requiring and receiving from them
a much higher rate for the carriage of all classes of freight, both east and
west bound, over said lines of which they are and have been receivers,
than said receivers have required or received of other railroad companies
and transportation lines, particularly the said Missouri Pacino Railway
Company, and the said the St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Rail-
road Company, for similar service', and similar carriage of like i`reight."
_ , . The receiversanswer at length, and as follows:
·   i »   A Answnn. .
First. Respondents submit to this honorable court that none of the matters
in the said intervening petition mentioned and complained of are matters in
respect of which the petitioners therein areentitled to relief in this proceed-