
    
      The Oswego Falls Bridge Co. v. Aaron G. Fish et al.
    
    T. Jenkins, for appellants;
    H. Spencer, for respondents.
    night to build a free bridge near to a toil bridge already erected.
   Anneal from a decree ¿of the vice chancellor of the fifth circu[t dismissing the complainanrs bill with costs. The object ° . . of the bill was to restrain the commissioners, appointed by the act of April, 18S8, to build a free bridge across the Os-wego River, between the falls and the North line of the village of Fulton, from proceeding to erect such bridge, The principal question was whether the Legislature had the right to authorize the erection of a free biidge across the river so near to the bridge which the complainants had erected under their charter as to diminish their tolls, and materially impair the profits of the company.

The chancellor held that the case could not be distinguished, in principle, from those of the Charles River Bridge Company v. The Warren Bridge, decided by the supreme court of the United States (II Peters’ Rep. 420,) and The Mohawk Bridge Co. v. The Utica & Schenectady R. R. Co. decided by this court, (6 Paige’s Rep. 554.) And he decided in accordance with those decisions.

Decree appealed from affirmed with costs.  