COE V. h. & N. E. co. 775 �of persons before the court in the former suit, the course of procedure in such cases bas been well settled by the former practice of the court; and that is that, before such service can be of any validity, an application to the court must be made setting forth the circumstances which render such a service on the attorney or soliciter proper, and the order ob- tained from the court directing that service be made, and that such service, when made, shall answer as a substituts for actual service on the party bo represented by the attorney. �The motion, therefore, to vacate the service of process in ail these cases is granted. ���CoB & MiLSOM V. Thb LoOTSviLiiB & Nashvillb JbUnr �EOAD Co. {Oi/rcuit Court, M. D. Tennessee. , 1880.) �Bailhoad — Dbuvery — Injunction. — Complainants bought a lot con- tiguous to defendant's depôt, in Nashville, and fitted up a stock yard thereon, at considerable expense. There was no express contract be- tween complainants and the defendant in relation to the matter, but it ■was clear that such yard was a convenience to the defendant's business. By the permission or acquiescence of defendant, complainants' yard was connected with defendant's road by appropriate stock gaps and pens. After the same had been in use by both parties for more than 12 years the defendant entered into a contract -with the Union Stock. Yard Company for the erection of a stock yard in the city of Hash. ville, outside the city limits, and more than a mile distant from com- plainant's yard ; and said defendant, among other things, agreed that it would establish no other stock-yard in Nashville, and that it would deliver, and cause to be delivered, to the said Union Btock-Yard Com- pany, all live stock shipped over its road, and consigned to the city of Nashville ; and that it would make the stock yard of the said company its stock depôt for said city, and would not deliver at any other point or points of the city, but agreed to deliver all stock shipped to the city of Nashville at the yards of the said Union Stock- Yard Company. Complainants, having been accordingly notified that no more stock would be delivered to them at their yard after a speeified date, filed their bill, in which they prayed for an injunction to resti-ain " defend- ant's agents and offlcers and servants from interfering with or in any manner disturbing the enjoyment and faoilities now afforded to com- plainants by said defendant upon its Unes of railway, for the transac- ����
