COE ». 1. & W. E. CO. TÇl �and dîseharge stock at complainants' yard as easily au.d �cheaply as it can at the Union Stock Yard Company's yards. �' Such delivery is both practicable and convenient, and it is, �•we think, its legal duty, under the facts of this case, to do so. �But defendant, protesting that the proposed discrimination in favor of the Union Stock Yard Company would, if executed, constitute no -wrong of which complainants ought justly to complain, contends — First, that complainants, even suppos- ing the law to be otherwise, have an adequate remedy at law, and therefore cannot have any relief from a court of chancery ; and, second, that if a chancery court may entertain jurisdic- tion, no relief in the nature of a mandatory order to compel defendant to continue accommodations to the complainants ought to be made until the final hearing. If such is the law it must be so administered. But we do not concur in this inter- pretation of the adjudications. Those cited in argument are not, we think, applicable to the facts of this case. Complain- ants could, in the event defendant carries its threat into exe- cution and withholds the accommodations olaimed as their right, sue at law and recover damages for the wrong to be thuB inflicted. But they could not, through any process used by courts of law, compel defendant to specifie allypçrform its legal duty in the premises. And this imperfect redress çould only be attained through a multiplicity: of suits, to be prose- cuted at great expense of money and labor; and then, after reaching the end through the harassing delays incident to such litigation, complainants' business would be destroyedj and the Union Stock Yard Company, born of favoritism and fostered by an illegal and unjust discrimination, would be secure in its monopoly. Here an adequate remedy can be administered and a multiplicity of suits avoided. �One other point remains to be noticed. Ought a manda- tory order to issue upon this preliminary application ? Clearly not, uniess the urgency of the case demanda it, and the rights of the parties are free from reasonable doubt. The duty which ■the complainants seek by this suit to enforce is one imposed and defined by law — a duty of which the court has judicial knowledge. The injunction compelling its performance, pend- ����
