Western Union Tel. Co. v. Pittsburg, C., C. & St. L. Ry. Co.

Citations

• 137 F. 435
• 1905 U.S. App. LEXIS 5230

Syllabus

<p>1. Telegraphs — Line Contracts — Enforcement — Adequate Remedy at Law.</p> <p>A bill by a telegraph company to have certain right of way contracts with certain railroads declared to be in force, and for specific performance, was not demurrable on the ground that complainants had an adequate remedy at law.</p> <p>2. Same—Equity—Federal Courts—Jurisdiction—Parties.</p> <p>On a bill against a consolidated railroad corporation to obtain specific performance of right of way contracts between complainant telegraph company and defendant’s constituent companies, the mere fact that the federal court in which the suit was brought could not enforce its orders in another district, except by contempt or other personal proceedings, was not conclusive in determining what parties were before the court.</p> <p>3. Same.</p> <p>In a suit in equity in the federal courts for specific performance of telegraph right of way contracts with certain consolidated railroad companies, the necessary parties being subject to the court’s jurisdiction, it was immaterial that a portion of the property affected was beyond the court’s territorial jurisdiction.</p> <p>4. Same—Contracts—Consolidation.</p> <p>Where an operating contract consolidating various right of way contracts between complainant telegraph company and certain railroads did not attempt to annihilate or merge the various underlying agreements, further than to provide for a practical operating agreement for a period of 25 years, and thereafter until terminated by one year’s notice by either party, and such notice was duly given, the termination of such contract did not deprive complainant of its rights under the underlying agreement and certain condemnation proceedings, though no relief could be granted under such operating agreement.</p> <p>5. Same—Validity of Contract—Illegal Provisions—Defenses.</p> <p>In a suit by a telegraph company to obtain specific performance of right of way contracts with certain railroads, defendant was not