DINSMORE V. L,, N. A. & C. B. 00. 607 �ness over its line. From the faets now before the court it looks verj muoh like, after aband.oning the arrangement be- tween the defendant and the Union Express Company, the former sought to do by indirection what it feared it would not be allowed to do directly. The new terms and conditions upon which the Adams Express Company was to be allowed to continue its business over the defendant's line of roadwere doubtless intended to be prohibitory, and the proof shows that practically they were. �But it is now urged by the defendant's counsel that it may lawfully do its own express business over its own line of road, açd that at the rates at which it is now carrying freight for the Adams Express Company it can do its own express busi- ness with profits to its stockholders. On the other hand, it is insisted by the express company's counsel, that, by its charter, the defendant is not authorized to do an express busi- ness. �Monopolies are not favored by the law, and it would seem that if railroad companies can afford to do the express business over their own Unes as well and satisfactorily in ail respects as that business is or can be done by express companies, and at the same time with less expanse to the public, express companies should not be heard to complain. �The proper time, however, to decide this question, which is now the chief controversy between the parties, will be at the final hearing. I now express no opinion on it. The terms and conditions upon which the defendant bas received and transported the express company's freight for a number of years before this suit was commenced have been fully stated, and from a careful reading of the injunction order, though it is somewhat ambiguous, it sufiBciently appears that, without change in the terms and conditions, and until the final hear- ing, the express company was not to be disturbed in carrying on its business over the defendant's line of road; and if, in the meantime, either party should think the compensation which the defendant was thereby authorized to demand and reeeive from the express company for the privileges enjoyed by the latter were unreasonable, application could be made to ����
