Judgment affirmed, with costs. All concurred, except McLennan, P. J., who dissented upon the ground that the agreement, if made, was in violation of the Interstate Commerce Act * and, therefore, not enforcible.
See 24 U. S. Stat. at Large, 379, chap. 104, § 1 et seq.; 25 id. 855, chap. 382; 33 id. 847, chap. 708. Since amd. by 34 id. 584 et seq., chap. 3591; Id. 838, Res. 47.—[Rep.