418 mnSBAL . BKPOBTEB. �the defendant was to famish a main battery at Atohison, and instruments along the line for working the same, uot to exceed 12 in number, and the defendant was to control said telegraph line, fix tariff of rates, and keep said line in repair; the plaintiff famishing the operators, and paying the pro- eeeds of the business to the defendant. �The railroad business was to be done without charge, ex- eept the eastern ^business in exoess of $1,200 per annum, which excess was to be at half rates; the defendant having the right to string another wire on said line at its own expense, which it has since done. �The bill further alleges that said contract is nuU and void, being beyond its power to make, and in coi^travention of its rights and duties to the govemment and the public, under the said act of congress, and the amendments thereto, and alleging that it had taken and was in peaceable possession of its said line of telegraph, and praying an injunction against the defendant; that it be enjoined fromtaking possession, or interfering with plaintiff's possession, thereof, and that said contract be declared void, and that an account be taken bctween the said parties, etc. �On this showing, Judge Otis, of the second district, grantei a temporary injunction or restraining order, and thereafter the defendant removed the cause to this court, and now moTes for a dissolution of said injunction. �For the purposes of this motion it is not my intention to discuss any points of law fairly decided by Judge McCrary in the Omaha case, [AU. dd Pacific Tel. Co. v. Union Pacifie Ry. Co. 1 Fed, Eep. 745,] but shall attempt to apply that decision, BO far as practicable, to the facts in this case. Under the thirteenth section of the act of July 1, 1862, this company, plaintiff, was granted the right to build 100 miles of railroad and telegraph, west of the Missouri river, upon the same terms and conditions, in ail respects, ae were provided for the con* struction of the railroad and telegraph line of the Union Pacific Eailroad Company. So it will be seen that the rights, privileges, and duties of the plaintiff company were identical with thoae of the Union Pacific Company. ����
