Show l 11 Y JUNCTION INJUNCTION I Not no MO many Imy years earA ego much Hutch was WAil hued about by hy ln lion There r w vas A n general 0 I Idea Idl u as n to lint the phrase hr M meant but dear clear mad definite The theory developed l v lop d in connection with the railroad strike that were HO so prevalent at the lit time lime Again It Il In is I the lIroI that are blinKing hi inK u ll into operation If It It It le guy gov by hy Injunction Tie lh conies COrn front from Rt At Louis that i Judge Amos AmoK JI M Thayer r In iii the United Hades circuit i art urt hn ham handed hn down n a decision against the tho sale of or tickets by t c ticket brokers In business In ht St Lotus which nf ar feet fact ten II urine r ins wore Wort granted on cation of ot tho the I Nashville company aid tho the Mobile Olio Ohio company compan This Thin Is certainly R a defea for tor the ticket brokers broker They ho may appeal but hut eon con scarcely expect a decision In III time to afford them nay nil relief The Tito railroads have havo hll vo won n IL Bre great t victory vIctor That a I company unity may make maken n a contract with n a person traveling over Itt its road ron on any allY terms It chooses In III a IL tart feet Bitted beyond tf f the tho terms term ore not acceptable they need riot not be Agreed 1 to but hut when whon the contract Is made each ench party can call Insist hullt upon tho limo ob of Its Us terns These TheBo non lion nontransferable nontransferable transferable tickets no doubt douht are arc special contract tickets the terms of ot which cannot cannel be he taken advantage of or except by bythe time the parties to them tham Such being the case w wh liy In should the lire railroads he be given the benefit of ot an extraordinary remedy There IH I no reason to believe bellevo that the tho theother other party to the contract contact would be he beTho booI heThe I The Tho roads tired need not honor hOllor a non traM ticket presented by b any other othar than tho the perren to whom issued anti and can take into ample measures measured to protect themselves The question arises eH It If n a f broker to whom n a 1 no ticket Is II sold nold can bo he enjoined from selling soiling It why liy cannot the original purchaser r be bo enjoined front free selling Helling It Of Ot course COurM he hue heIs heIs Is not making lURking a I business of ot selling non nontransferable transferable tickets and keeps II no nn of ot office Ace fice for tor tin the transaction of or It But If there thelo Is anyone culpable In tho the first In Instance instance stance It In Is the purchaser er anti and not the tho broker Nor can tho the broker complain It If ho he Is IK not permitted to sell lell tho tiro ticket because he hc has hns full notice that It Is IR non lion nontransferable nontransferable transferable and when whon tie fie buys It he does to so with knowledge of Qt that fact and at nt his risk In III tho the Instance state slate tion on tho the matter oven even If It In favor of ot the broker rind and nm against the railroads would be of oC no boned bandit t to him tor for It U la is lann isan nn un Interstate matter over which Con Congress gross gress linn hue Jurisdiction The Tho case tase Is sure to become n land landmark mark maik In railroad law and the example here set net et will bo ho followed toll owed In other places pineo It points a II short cut cul to Urn the th attain attainment nUn In ment meat of ot a 1 desirable object anti and does docs away alla with tiro tho annoyance and ex cx heave penic of oC nn nil ordinary o rIll nn r trial In suits for tor damages brought by hy purchasers of or non nOli nontransferable nontransferable transferable tickets It will also alga almost raise a n laic hue and cry about gov government go CO eminent by IJ Injunction but hut that alarm rm people so 80 at much now ns as It once slice did |