UNITED STATES t). IIEHFHIS'<& LITTLE BOOE B. 00. 237 ���United States ex rel, Southern Bxpbess Co. v. Mbmphis & LixTLE EooK E. Co. and others. �(Oircuit Court, W. D. Tennessee. March 8, 1881.) �1. CoNTEMPT op Court— Bkbach of Injukctiok— Pokbign Cobpora- TioN— Fine. �TJnder the statutes of the United States a corporation may be flned for a breach of an injunction, and the court is not limited to proceed- ings against the individual directors or other responsible agents. And where a foreign corporation is doing business in another state, in which the courts of the United States acquire jurisdiction over it to issue an injunction, it is proper to punish a contempt of the court's authority by a fine, as well against the corporation itself as the sub- ordinate agents found within the jurisdiction. �In Equity. �Eule to show cause why they should not be punished for contempt of court, by the violation of an injunction, was issued against the Memphis & Little Eock Eailroad, Company, an Arkansas corporation, doing business in Tennessee, and cer- tain designated officiais and agents, who, being served with the rule, ail appeared and answered, including the corpora- tion. It appeared that on a bill filed by the Southern Express Company an injunction wasgranted, among bther things, for- bidding discriminations against the plaintiff, and directing not more than a certain rate should be charged for express freight between Memphis and Little Eock. The injunction ■was properly served, but the railroad company oontinued to charge a greater rate than it specified, and refused the plain- tiff's freight without payment of the overcharges. There was much proof taken, but the facts on which the court acted were Bufficiently stated in delivering judgment. The defendant company moved at the same time to dissolve the injunction, among other causes, for the reason that the published act of the Arkansas legislature, on which the court acted in deter- mining the rates, was never, in fact, passed, and after the contempt proceedings were ended the injunction was modi- fied in accordance with that fact. There was shown by the evidence of the telegrams and orders issued by the company, ��� �
