43 N.J. Eq. 77 | New York Court of Chancery | 1887
The injunction asked for in this case having been refused, the complainants now ask that the ad interim injunction order, made when the order to show cause why an injunction should not issue was granted, requiring the defendants to receive from the complainants, live stock carried over the complainants’ road, and consigned for delivery at the defendants’ yard, be continued in force until the appeal, which the complainants intend to take from the order denying an injunction, shall have been heard and decided. The court refused a preliminary injunction, because the right on which the complainants found their claim to such writ is, as a matter of law, entirely unsettled; indeed, because it is, as yet, wholly unknown whether the right, on which the complainants rest their claim to the interference of this court, will ever
The defendants have, under legislative authority, erected yards and other structures at Jersey City, for the reception, safe-keeping, feeding, slaughtering and sale of live stock, and for the past five years have carried on there a general stock-yard and market business. Until recently the defendants have received from the complainants all the live stock carried over the road of the complainants, and consigned for delivery at the defendants’ yards, but, on the 19th of August last, they gave the complainants notice that they would not, in the future, receive any live stock from them. The complainants have no connection by rail with the defendants’ yards. The eastern terminus of their road is at Hoboken, distant over a mile from the defendants’ yards. The complainants claim, that it is the legal duty of the defendants to receive, from them, live freight carried over their road, and consigned for delivery at the defendants’ yards, and that the only remedy, which will give them complete and adequate protection against the irreparable loss which must result to them from an obstinate and prolonged continuance of this breach of duty, is an injunction compelling the defendants to do their duty. The complainants are before the court simply in their character as common carriers. They do not own the stock which they ask the court to compel the defendants to receive. The service which the defendants render, after they have received live stock, is not rendered to the common carrier who transported the stock to their yards, but to its owner. They keep, feed, slaughter and sell. In none of these matters have the complainants the slightest concern. Hence, it would seem to be entirely clear, that if the defendants are under any duty to the complainants, it is simply a duty to receive such stock as the complainants may desire to deliver. For the simple service of receiving stock, it is not pretended, that the defendants make any charge, or receive any compensation, or that they have any authority, by their charter, to demand compensation for such service; so that if the defendants are under the duty which the complainants claim, and
The duties of corporations carrying on a business, similar to that in which the defendants are engaged, to common carriers engaged in the transportation of live freight, are wholly undefined. I know of no instance in which they have been the subject of judicial investigation. None were cited on the argument of either the present application or on the application for the injunction. This condition of the law is unquestionably fatal to the present application. For if by the judgment of the court the complainants are not entitled to a preliminary injunction, it is impossible for me to see any rational ground, upon which an order continuing the ad interim injunction order in force could be placed. By making such an order, the court would place itself in this absurd position : first decide that the complainants were not entitled to an injunction, and then, after the correctness of its decision had been challenged by an appeal, decide that because an appeal had been taken, the complainants were entitled, at least pending the appeal, to what, in the first instance, it had decided they were not entitled to.
But further discussion is unnecessary. This matter is at rest. Chancellor Runyon, in dealing with a similar application, in a case identical in its material facts with the one under consideration, has stated the considerations which must, in such cases, control the judgment of the court, so lucidly and forcibl}’-, that, but for the unusual tenacity with which this application has
On the argument of the present application, several cases, decided by circuit courts of the United States were cited, in which
The complainants’ application must, be denied, with costs.