mma v. wrrus. " 11
serve therprcperty of the company for its creditors; and considering that A
it is the duty of the receivers to adhere to and comply with the charters
and grants to the company by which their franchises and privileges were
obtained; and considering, further, that the aforesaid contract between "
the said receivers and the Missouri Pacific Railway Company is in viola-
tionof the laws of Texas, and not authorized by the charter of the Texas
& Pacific Railway Company, and that the Texas Trathc Association may
be likewise obnoxious,—an order of the court’s own motion will be en-
tered in this cause. directing the receivers to abrogate and annul the said
. contract with the Missouri Pacific Railway system, so far as it contem-
plates. discrimination against intersecting or connecting lines, and so far
as it constitutes or stipulates any combination in the nature of a partner-
ship with the Missouri Pacific Railway system in Texas; and advising ·
the said receivers to withdraw from all connection with the Texas Traflic
Association unless they are able to report that, under the rules of said
association, they are not required to discriminate in any manner for or
against any connecting or intersecting line of railway, or for or against
any shipper or the public.
Thisopinion, and the orders herein directed, are not to be construed
as any reflection upon the receivers. They received the property of the
Texas & Pacino Railway Company, which is a railway system by itself,
in a dilapidated condition, with all the complications and entanglements
arising from the fact that for years it formed an integral part of the
Missouri Pacino Railway system, and their management so far has been
so wise and judicious that they retain the full confidence ofthe court,
and merit the warmest approval from all financially interested in the
prosperity of the railway. V
Jurm v. WH»LIS.
(Oirouit Oaurt, M D. New York. January 12. 1887.) ‘
· F¤aun—Coxnmm¤mL RELATIONS—BUIT ro Snr Asron Convmuncm.
Where _the grantor of a deed was at the time_of itsexecution 77 years of age,
was womed a out business matters in connection with the property conveyed,
was in the habit of transacting business through the grantee, who was her
favorite nephew, and had her unlimited confidence, and signed the deed with-
out any consideration, on the representation of the grantee that he required
some written authorit from her to act in certain matters connected with the
property, and believedlshe was merely signing a power of attorney, the deed
will be set aside in a suit at the instance of the grantor.!
In Equity.
H. D. Donnelly, for complainant.
W. G. Peckham, for defendant
*8ee note at end of case. l e