W. V. TBLEGRAPH 00. V. ST. J. & W. ST. 00. 433 �executed, the parties are bound, and rights may have accrued that a court of equity will enforce. The contract was entered into ; it is not tainted with moral turpitude ; under it a Une of telegraph has been built and operated, and a valuable bus- iness has been created; for about nine years it has been rec- ognized and executed. Under these circumstances it is not the province of either party to declare the contract void, and assume, without process and without a settlement, to seize the Unes and property. �2. It is insisted that by the foreclosure sale of 1875, to the new Company, they acquired ail the rights the old company had in the wires along the Une; that the new company took them freed from any claim of plaintiff under the contract, and is not bound by it. This claim is fully met by the alle- gations in the bill, which is admitted by the demurrer, that the new company, since its purchase, has fully ratified, sanc- tioned, and confirmed the contract, "and that it has received ail the benefits and advantages of said contract that had been received and enjoyed" by the old company. If this allega- tion is true, it must foHow that the new company is at least 80 far bound by the terms of the contract as to be obliged to Bubmit to an accounting and settlement with the plaintiff before it can take possession of the wires and eject the plain- tiff therefrom. A corporation, like an individual, may ratify, by its acts, the terms of a contract by which it would not without such ratification be bound. �3. It is also insisted that the plaintiff is not entitled to relief, because of the clause in the contract which gives the plaintiff the exclusive privilege of constructing and operating a Une of telegraph along the Une of the railroad. �I have little doubt that the clause here referred to is void ; and should any telegraph company desire to erect another Une along the railroad, I do not think the plaintiff could be heard to object. Western Union Telegraph Company v. Avierican Union Telegraph Company, Supreme Court of Georgia, 1880. �But that clause does not vitiate the entire contract, as between the parties ; much less does it preclude the plaintiff from seeking the aid of a court of equity to protect rights �v.3,no.8— 28 ����
