DINSUOBS V. L., N. A. & 0. B. 00. SD3 ���DiNSMOBE, V. Thb Louisvillb, New Albaut & Chicago Eatc,- �EOAD Co.* �{Circuit Court, D. Indiana. , 1880.) �1. CoMMON Cakribkb — Express Oompanibs — Shippee — Injdnction. �The refusai of a railroad Company to carry an express company's safes and chests, unless it was allowed to open the same and inspect their contents, or was furnished with an inventory of such contents, with the furtherunderstandingthat the railroad companymight, whenever it saw fit, open and inspect the safes and chests of the express Com- pany, and also collect the freight on each separate article or pàrcel contained therein, as if each had been shipped by itself, violates both the express company's rights as a shipper, and the tenus of an inter- locutory judgment teraporarily restraining an interference with the express company'sbusiness. 10 M. &W. 397. �2. Sahe — Ofpicbks and Employes — Injunction— Contbmpt— Advicb oy �CouNSBL. — The oflBcers and employes of SHCh railroad are not liable for contempt in thus violating such injunction, where they have acted under the advice of able and reputable counsel, and where it was chieflydesired to obtain a construction of the injunction order. �In Chancery. Rule to show cause why certain parties should not be attached for contempt of an interlocutory order of injunction. �Clarence A , Seivard and Baker, Hord e Hendricks, for com- plainant, �Bennet H. Young, for respondent. �Gbesham, D. J. The bill of complaint in thîs case gives a comprehensive history of the origin and development of the express business in the United States, and of the relations wbich, for some 40 years, have subsisted between express carriers and railway companies generally, and it states par- tioularly the relations that have existed between the Adams Express Company and the defendant. �It appears that, since August, 1862, until the bringing of this suit, the Adams Express Company bas conducted its business as an express carrier over the line of this railroad from Greencastle, Indiana, south to New Albany and Louis- �*See Dinsmore v. Loutsville, C, e L. By., Co. 2 Fbd. Ref. 465. v.3,no.ll— 38 ����
