Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 8.djvu/817

DAViS f. 8TBWAH.T. 803 �Company may, unclej: its charter, engage in the express business, and under-: take to carry and deliver express packages beyond its Une. It is enough for the present to say that if it possesses the right to engage in this business at all, it mustdo so upon terms of perfeet equality with all other express com- panies, and the court will see that it'does not take to itself any privileges in thisregard that it does notextendto. the complainant. ;,■'.,■ �. The motion to disolve the injuncition is overruled. ' , '7 '2. What has been said virtually disposes of the questions raised by the supplemental bill. The raillroad company is bouud to carry for the express company for a reasonable compensation, and mtist not discriminate against it. A court of chancery has power to decree a compliance with this wholesome regulation. This court cannbt for a moment sanction the proposition that the railrbad comlpany iiiky, by extortion or unjust discrimination, exclude the express company from the right to conduct its business upon their raibroad. I am not pre- pared now to fix the maximum rates to be charged for the transpor- tation of express matter, but I have no doubt of the power of the court, after investigation, to do so. An order for this purpose should bot, as a rule, be made untU after a reference to a master, and a report by him after hearing. For the present, the injunction hereinbefore allowed will be modified so as to enjoin and restrain the respondent from charging the complainant for the transportation of express matter, ineluding closed packages, more than a fair and reasonable rate ; such charges in no case to exceed the rate charged upon similar express mat- ter to itself, or to any other express company, or for similar express matter received from, or delitered to, the Iron Mountain, etc., Eail- road Company Express, or the Paciiic Express Company. Ordered accordingly. ���Davis and others v. Stbwabt, Assignee. �{Circuit Court, D, lowa. September, 1881.) �1. Featidulent Purchases — Assignees. �Where a vendee is insolvent at the time a purcliase is made, and does not expect to be able to pay for the gooda purchased, the vehdor is entitled to pos- Bession as against such a vendee's voluntary assigaee. �An action of replevin is brought to recover the possession of gooiis alleged to have been fraudulently purchased by Harter & Claus, defendant's assignors. The plaintiflfs rescind the sale, and follow the goods, stating in their petition "that when Harter & Claus purchased ��� �