Public service companies are more strictly limited than others in entering into contracts in restraint of trade, because of their duty to give equal service to the public. They can make no contracts inimical to that duty62 Thus an agreement by a railway company to give a single telegraph company the exclusive right of establishing a line of telegraphic communication along its road is invalid, being both in restraint of trade, and contrary to the policy of a particular statute;63 and an agreement for an exclusive right of way over a tract of land to be given a natural gas company or oil company, also has been held invalid.64

A carrier may contract with a particular transfer company that the latter shall have an exclusive right to solicit custom on its trains or premises.65 The same has been held in regard to express business,66 but not without dissent.67 Exclusive privileges to hackmen,68 and to load logs between stations,69 have been held not invalid as a monopoly in restraint of trade.

Bishop v. Palmer, 146 Mass. 489, 16 N. E. 299,4 Am. St. Rep. 339; Clanoey v. Onondaga Salt Co., 62 Barb. 396. But see Roeenbaum v. United States Credit SyBtem Co., 65 N. J. L. 266, 48 Atl. 237, 53 L. R. A. 449.

62 Gibbs v. Consolidated Gas Co., 130 U. S. 396, 32 L. Ed. 979, 9 S. Ct. Rep. 396; Chicago Gas Light, etc., Co. v. People's Gas Light, etc., Co., 121 III. 530, 13 N. E. 169, 2 Am. St. Rep. 124; Dunbar v. American Tel. ft Tel. Co., 238 111. 456, 87 N. E. 521; West Virginia Trans. Co. v. Ohio River Pipe line Co., 22 W. Va. 600, 46 Am. Rep. 527.

The effect of the Interstate Commerce Acts must also be considered.

63 U. S. Comp. St., Sec. 10072 (U. 8. Rev. Stat., Sec.5263); United States v. Union Pacific Ry. Co., 160 U. S. 1, 40 L. Ed. 319, 16 S. Ct. 190; Western Union Telegraph Co. v. Burlington ft S. Ry. Co., 3 McCrary, 130; Western Union Telegraph Co. v. American Union Tel. Co., 9 Biss. 72; Western Union Tel. Co. v. Baltimore ft O. Tel. Co., 19 Fed. 660; Western Union Tel. Co. p. Balto., etc., Tel. Co., 23 Fed. 12;

Mobile ft O. R. Co. v. Postal Tel. Co., 76 Miss. 731, 26 So. 370, 45 L. R. A. 223. And see West Virginia Transportation Co. v. Ohio River Pipe line Co., 22 W. Va. 600, 46 Am. Rep. 527; Western Union Tel. Co. v. American U. Tel. Co., 65 Ga. 160, 38 Am. Rep. 781; St Louis ft C. R. Co. v. Postal Tel. Co., 173 LI. 508, 51 N. E. 382.

64 Calor Oil ft Gas Co. v. Framell, 128 Ky. 715, 109 S. W. 328, 36 L. R. A. (N. S.) 456; West Virginia Trans. Co. v. Ohio River Pipe Line Co., 22 W. Va. 600, 46 Am. Rep. 527.

65 The D. R. Martin, 11 Blatchf. 233; Fed. Cas. No. 1030; Jencks v. Coleman, 2 Sumn. 221, Fed. Cas. No. 7258; Kates v. Atlanta Baggage, etc., Co., 107 Ga. 636, 34 S. E. 372, 46 L. R. A. 431; Dingman v. Duluth, etc., R. Co., 164 Mich. 328, 130 N. W. 24, 32 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1181; Godbout v. St. Paul Union Depot Co., 79 Minn. 188, 81 N. W. 835, 47 L. R. A. 532; Barney v. Oyster Bay, etc., Co., 67 N. Y. 301, 23 Am. Rep. 115; Lewis v. Weatherford, etc., R. Co., 36 Tex. Civ. App. 48, 81 S. W. 111.