Electric Lighting Co. v. Mobile & S.H. Ry. Co.

• Decision Date: 08 April 1896
• Citation: Electric Lighting Co. v. Mobile & S.H. Ry. Co., 19 So. 721, 109 Ala. 190 (Ala. 1896)
• Parties: ELECTRIC LIGHTING CO. OF MOBILE v. MOBILE & S. H. RY. CO. ET AL.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

19 So. 721

109 Ala. 190

ELECTRIC LIGHTING CO. OF MOBILE v. MOBILE & S. H. RY. CO. ET AL.

Supreme Court of Alabama

April 8, 1896

Appeal from chancery court, Mobile county; W. H. Tayloe, Chancellor.

The bill in this case was filed by the appellant, the Electric Lighting Company of Mobile, against the Mobile & Spring Hill Railway Company and one J. H. Bleoo, the general manager of said railroad company. The bill averred the existence of a contract made between the Electric Lighting Company of Mobile and the Mobile & Spring Hill Railway Company, by which it was stipulated that the former should supply to the latter steam power to be delivered to the pulley of an electric dynamo, to run its cars and operate its railway from the city of Mobile to Spring Hill, a suburb thereof, a distance of about seven miles. It was averred in the said bill that complainant has fulfilled in all respects its part of said contract by supplying the power stipulated therefor to run the cars and operate said road, but that said defendant company has notified complainant that on and after Monday, October 8 1894, it will discontinue the use of the power furnished by complainant, and will ground its lines or wires, so as not to receive the power provided by said contract, and threatens to remove the generators and switch board placed in complainant's station to receive the power furnished under said contract, and also threatens to discontinue the use of the power furnished by complainant. It was further averred that said defendant also threatens that it will connect its said wires with the electrical apparatus and machinery of another company or person, so as to turn thereon an additional current of electricity on the same lines and wires on which complainant's current is turned on, and if that is done, it will more than likely result in destroying the electrical apparatus of complainant, and causing irreparable damage to its engine and machinery. The bill further alleges that in carrying out said threat to ground the wires of defendant receiving the electrical current, complainant's engine, used in furnishing said power, would receive a reactionary shock, liable to break or wreck it, and cause irreparable damage to said engine and the electrical apparatus connected therewith; that if defendant should remove the generators and switch board placed in complainant's station to enable it to furnish said power the complainant could not carry out its said contract; that it is a part of said contract that they should be placed and kept there for that purpose. The bill further alleges that the president and secretary of such company reside in the city of New York, and that the entire management of said company is placed in the hands of one J. H . Bleoo, who is the active party in said acts and threats above set forth in preventing complainant from carrying out a specific performance of said contract. The bill alleged that the company is insolvent, and that complainant had no adequate remedy at law for the said injurious consequences of a breach of said contract and in carrying out said threats. The prayer of the bill was as follows: "And complainant further prays that you will grant to it the state's writ of injunction enjoining and restraining the said Mobile and Spring Hill Railway Company and the said J. H. Bleoo, their agents and servants, from grounding the lines or wires of said railway company, or from doing any act to prevent the electric current furnished by complainant from passing through the lines and roadbeds of said railway company, and that said railway company and said J. H. Bleoo be enjoined and restrained from removing the generators and switch board from the station of complainant, and also from disconnecting the lines or wires of said railway company from the machine lines, or wires through which said current passes, or from connecting their said wires or lines with the plant or electrical apparatus of any other person or company during the continuance of said contract, and at the hearing that your honor will extend said injunction to the term of said contract." Upon the filing of the bill and the giving of the bond as ordered, an injunction was issued in accordance with the prayer of the bill. The respondent moved to dissolve the injunction, on the grounds, among others: (1) Because the allegations of the bill show that it is without equity, in that the complainant has an adequate remedy at law for all the material matters and things complained of in its bill (2) because the bill shows that the specific execution of the contract would not be free from hardship and oppression on the respondent company; (3) because the bill of complaint seeks to enforce the specific performance of an alleged contract requiring the payment of $28 per day for four years while at the same time alleging that the respondent company is insolvent, which allegation on its face shows impossibility of specific performance of said alleged contract; (4) because said complaint fails to allege that such irreparable injury would result to complainant as would make the extraordinary proceeding by injunction its only remedy; (5) because the said bill of complaint fails to show how the respondent company, which it...