Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 3.djvu/602

SIN8M0BS 9. !•.> H. A. ft 0. B. OQ. S9$ �ner, and upon sim3ar terms, over that portion of the defend- ant's railroad from Greencastle to Michigan City, the northem terminus of the road, thence to Chicago. The bill avers that these two express companies, during the period named, inter- changed express matter at Greencastle, and that thereby each of them had a continuous and direct line of express communi- cation, daily, between Louisville and Chicago, and Chicago and Louisville. �The aflûdavits show that each of these express companies made concessions in favor of such through express matter from its own local rates, so as to produce a reasonable through rate, and such as either company might have cbarged if it had performed the entire carriage itself . The affidavits also show that since the first day of July, 1880, when the defend- ant's course of business with the Adams Express Company complained of commenced, the two express companies, by arrangement between them, have continuously received ex- press matter at any point on the line of one company, destined for any point on the line of the other company, as through matter, becoming responsible for its delivery to the cousignee, and billing it through at through rateg. �The bill alleges that in the year 1879 certain persons, ofH- cially or otherwise connected with the Louisville & Nashville Eailroad, of Kentucky, perfected the organization of an express company, under a Kentucky charter, known as the Union Express Company; that through their influence the Louisville & Nashville Eailroad Company, and several other southern railroad companies controUed by it or under it» influence, by concert between them, determined to give to the Union Express Company the exclusive right to do business as an express carrier over their Unes, and to exclude the Adam» Express Company, its messengers and agents, therefrom ; that they also procured the Louisville & Nashville Eailroad Com- pany, which, by ownership of stock or otherwise, exerted a controlling influence over the defendant, to cause the defend- ant to notify the Adams Express Company that ail existing agreements, express or implied, respecting the transportation of express matter by the defendant over its road, for the ����