P. & G. & A. & G. C. R. R. Co.'s vs, Spratt & Callahan-Arg'mt of Counsel. 1867, and on the same day subpoenas were issued against the defendants. The subpoena to the Pensacola & Georgia Railroad Company bears the following return: "Executed the within subpoena in Chancery, by handing a true copy thereof to Edward Houstoun, President of the Pensacola & Georgia Railroad Company, this 5th of April, A. D. 1867. R. SAUNDERS, Sheriff, By G. C. TOWNSEND, D. S." It bears the following endorsements of the Sheriffs: "Came to hand April 3d, 1867. W. D. GREEN, Sheriff." "Came to hand April 5th, 1867. R. SAUNDERS, The subpoena to the Atlantic & Gulf Railroad Company bears the following return: "Executed the within subpoena by serving a true copy of this subpoena on E. F. Henderson, the agent of the Atlantic & Gulf Railroad Company, at the office of said company and agent at Live Oak, in Suwannee county, this 4th day of April, 1867. W. D. GREEN, Sheriff of Suwannee county." Notice was served in like manner to the defendants, respectively, to appear at Lake City on the 18th day of April, at the Chambers of his Honor T. T. Long, Judge, to show cause, if any they could, why an injunction should not be granted according to the prayer in complainants' bill. On the 18th day of April the following consent rule was read and taken in open court at the Spring Term of Columbia county: "It is agreed between the Counsel and Solicitors of the complainants, and of the defendants, "That the hearing of P. & G. & A. & G. C. R. R. Co.'s vs. Spratt & Callahan-Arg'mt of Counsel. the motion of complainants for injunction to be set for hearing before his Honor Thos. T. Long, Judge, at his Chambers at Lake City, on next Wednesday, the 24th of April, at 10 o'clock, A. M.' "It is further agreed, "That the separate answers of the defendants shall be filed by his Honor Judge Long, and the same shall have like effect as if filed in the Clerk's office of Suwannee Circuit Court by the clerk thereof.' D. P. HOLLAND, Solicitor for Complainants. LAW, LOVELL & FALLIGANT, Solicitors for A. & G. R. R. Co. PAPY & WESTCOTT, Solicitors for P. &. G. R. R. Co." Thereupon, the separate answer of Pensacola & Georgia Railroad Company was filed on the 18th day of April, A. D. 1867. And the separate answer of the Atlantic & Gulf Railroad Company was filed at the same time. And the motion for the granting of the injunction set for hearing on the 24th inst., at 10 A. M. The separate answer of "The Pensacola & Georgia Railroad Company" insists that 1st. That there is no equity in the bill. 2d. That this Court has no jurisdiction to grant the prayer thereof and that the defendant is not bound to answer the same and insisting on the special matters set forth, and have the same benefit thereof as if it had pleaded the same or had demurred to said bill. Yet, nevertheless, the answer says: That by virtue of their charter and amendments, this defendant was authorized and impowered to construct said branch road. That it had proceeded to construct said branch road, and had fully graded and trestled the same, and prepared it for laying the iron rails thereon, when, owing to the war then P. & G. & A. & G. C. R. R. Co.'s vs. Spratt & Callahan-Arg'mt of Counsel. existing between "the United States and the so-called Confederate States," the work was arrested just at the point where the laying of the track would have commenced. That it incurred and paid the whole cost and value necessary before the iron rails were laid, including a large number of cross-ties, which were distributed along the line of said branch road, ready to be used whenever the iron rails could be procured. That during the war it sought to obtain the iron. "That during the continuance of the war it sought in various ways to complete the said branch road for the grading and trestling of which, as already stated, it had expended the full value, but failed, because it was unable to procure the iron rails." That during the war it became the adopted policy of the C. S. to seize upon such roads as it deemed necessary for military purposes, and to facilitate its operations in carrying on the war then waging with the United States, and in some instances taking up the iron rails from one road and placing them upon another. That this policy was adopted with respect to the branch road, and it was informed by the agent of the C. S. that such was its purpose, and its expectation, and design to lay the iron rails thereon by the C. S. at its own expense, and to use the road for its own benefit, except so far as by the constitution and the laws compensation was required to be made to defendant. That it was the design of the agent of the Confederate States to avoid, if they could the payment of compensation as required in all cases of seizure or impressment, and to that end various propositions and terms were made and offered, "and finally it was agreed that the Confederate States should have the use of the road-way on said branch road, together with such cross-ties as this defendant had provided for that purpose, free of any charge, owing to the P. & G. & A. & G. C. R. R. Co.'s vs. Spratt & Callahan-Arg'mt of Counsel. war, at the conclusion of which this defendant was to have the privilege of purchasing the superstructure laid by the Confederate States upon said road-way, and bridges, &c., &c., and if the parties could come to no terms as to price, the Confederate States was to have the right to remove the same." The answer next alleges a certain agreement entered into through the attorney and agent of the C. S. with the Forida. Railroad Co., relative to taking so much iron, and chairs, and spikes, from the Florida Railroad, and completing the branch road, and after the establishment of peace, providing for the same to be replaced on the Florida Railroad at the cost of the C. S., and they file as exhibit "A" copy of said agreement, which is made a part of the answer. And that as soon as it was informed of the said agreement, which was a few days thereafter, it objected thereto, and at once informed the agent and attorney of the C. S. of "its opposition to the same, as conflicting with the agreement entered into with this defendant," and if the Confederate States proceeded thereunder, it would regard it as in violation of its rights under the agreement made with it, and protested against the taking of possession of the branch road. That the C. S. by its agent, proposed another agreement with defendant, but it was refused. That notwithstanding the protest of this defendant as aforesaid, and notwithstanding the violation of the contract made with it as aforesaid, the Confederate States and its agents proceeded to use the branch road aforesaid, and to retain the possession thereof; and did lay down on the track the iron it had obtained from the Florida Railroad Company under the agreement aforesaid. That although this defendant was not bound longer by said agreement, it had no means to "regain the possession of said road which had been taken and then was in possession of the C. S." The answer next alleges that the complainants were well P. & G. & A. & G. C. R. R. Co.'s vs. Spratt & Callahan-Arg'mt of Counsel. advised of the policy of seizure and impressment that had been adopted by the C. S. That in all such cases and "where the use of property was permitted to the Confederate government, all expenses and cost of repair or completion were borne by the C. S. without liability on the part of the owner, and without expectation on the part of contractors, workmen or others, that any person other than the C. S. was liable for or would pay for work performed or materials furnished." That in this case the defendant had no authority or power to prevent the complainants from executing the contract they had made with the Confederate States through their agent with respect to this branch, and if it had attempted it the complainants would not have heeded it. That the complainants looked only to the C. S. for pay for work performed and materials furnished by them on said branch road; that the same was provided for by contract between them as to mode and amount; that the continuing in the possession of said branch road was in violation of the rights of defendant, and not in conformity to the contract it had agreed to. The answer next says that there was no responsibility from defendants to complainants in any form, and denies that the failure of the C. S. to pay the complainants gives them any right in law or equity to assert and maintain their claim against defendant. That on their contract they gave credit to the C. S. with the full knowledge that at the end of the war the road, whether held under the contract with defendant or against it, and notwithstanding the protest as aforesaid, would come back and be received by defendant, without any responsibility in law or equity for any obligation which might have been incurred by the C. S. That complainants in fact and in law assumed all the risks of being paid by the C. S., and did not suppose or act |