Gould-Huntington_0013

[top right corner:] 8

The pool was in every way a benefit to the Texas & Pacific.

But whether that was so or not the Texas & P. [Texas & Pacific] chose to enter into it
and having received its benefit, cannot now be heard to allege
that it receive without impairing its relations to "one of the"[crossed out]
the parties to the same agreement with whom it had "a private"[crossed out]
before contracted for a division of earnings in a pool contract.

By become a member of the Trans C. Assn. [Trans-Continental Association] the Texas P. [Texas & Pacific] to
this extent modified its contract with the G.H & S.A. [Galveston, Harrisburg, & San Antonio Railway] for a
division of the earnings from N.O. [ New Orleans ] to El Paso from Jan 1,
1885.

It was a pooling contract modified by a later pooling
contract.

Case of a borrowing bond on a vessel the latest controls

Haggar case — not to be pressed.

H. [Huntington] could not be expected to pool [illegible].

South western assn. [association] of which Mr. Midgley was business oner [owner].

It is said that H. [Huntington] should not have been guarded his lines by a
stipulation in the G. H [Gould-Huntington] contract against double pooling.

Like to the case of a partnership.

Case of steam boat run of share — opposition boat

Custom of Railways to pool — Contract subject to this
practice

[left margin:] p 305
The pool was to terminate on the completion core of a new line competing
for Cal. [California] business

[written vertically on left side:]
When the T&P [Texas & Pacific] signed [illegible] Trans. C. Agt [Trans-Continental Agreement] they in effect contracted
with the earnings G. H & S A [Galveston, Harrisburg, & San Antonio Railway] should be