statute, differing principally in that it extends to agreements affecting attorneys' or doctors' fees, the rate of insurance, and the rate of interest on loans, or any other services.1

South Carolina also has a statute prohibiting pools, agreements, etc., to regulate or fix the price of any article or thing whatsoever, or to maintain said price when so regulated or fixed, or to fix or limit the price of property insurance.2

Idaho prohibits corporations, associations of persons, etc., directly or indirectly to combine or contract in any manner whatsoever to fix the price of any article of commerce, or of produce of the soil, or of consumption by the people. Illinois, Utah, and Iowa have similar provisions in their laws, except that they also prohibit combinations, etc., of "individuals," and prohibit combinations "to regulate or fix the price of any article of merchandise or commodity." The Utah laws also prohibit any combination by persons having for its object or effect the control of prices for professional services, any products of the soil, any article of manufacture or commerce, or the cost of exchange or transportation.5

Wisconsin prohibits any agreement, contract, etc., to restrain or prevent competition in the price of any article or commodity in general use in the State or constituting a subject of trade or commerce, or which shall in any manner control or fix the price of any such article or fix any standard or figure by which the price to the public of any such article shall be in any manner controlled or established."

Indiana prohibits, every scheme, design, understanding, contract, etc., to increase or reduce the price of merchandise or any commodity, natural or artificial, and all arrangements, etc., between

1 Kansas, Laws 1889, chap. 257, sec. 1; G. S., sec. 5185.

2 South Carolina, Laws 1902, No. 574, sec. 1.

3 Idaho, Laws 1909, p. 297.

Illinois, Laws 1891, p. 206, as amended by Laws 1893 and 1907; Utah, Stats., sec. 1753; Iowa, Stats., sec. 5060.

Ford et al. v. Chicago Milk Shippers' Association, 155 Ill., 166 (1895).—The milk producers, shippers, and wholesale dealers in and around Chicago formed an association to regulate the sale and price of milk to the retail dealers. The boards of management of the association in pursuance of this purpose fixed the price to be paid for milk during certain periods, notified the members and city dealers, and required all parties buying milk from said association to give bonds to secure compliance with this and other orders. The association was given control of all milk consigned by any of its members to any stand in Chicago. In an action by the association against Ford et al. to recover for milk delivered, the defendants pleaded that the acts of the association were unlawful under laws of 1891, page 206, and on appeal to the State supreme court the plea was sustained.

• Utah, Stats., sec. 1752.

• Wisconsin, Laws 1907, p. 432; Stats., sec. 1791j.

Butterick Publishing Co., respondent, v. Rose, appellant, 141 Wis., 533 (1910).—Plaintiff entered into a contract with defendant in which the latter agreed to purchase a specified amount of plaintiff's patterns (patented), to sell them at retail prices fixed by plaintiff, and not to sell any other make of patterns during the continuance of the contract. Subsequently defendant refused to receive any more patterns and advertised and sold patterns of a rival concern. Defendant contended, among other things, that the contract was in restraint of trade and in violation of section 1770g, Wisconsin Statutes (similar to sec. 1791j, but applies to foreign corporations). Held, that this section was not intended to restrict the rights of a patentee, acquired under the laws of the United States, and that to hold that it did apply would make it unconstitutional.

7 Indiana, Laws 1907, chap. 243, sec. 1.

persons or corporations who control the output of any article of merchandise, designed, or which tend to advance, reduce, or control the price or the cost to the producer or consumer.1

A Michigan statute prohibits all contracts and agreements the purpose or intent of which is (among other things) to enhance or control or regulate the price of any article of machinery, tools, implements, vehicles, or appliances, to be used in any branch of productive industry. A clause of the act saves contracts "known to the common law and in equity as those relating to good will of trade.' Minnesota prohibits any pool, combination, or understanding whatsoever which tends in any way or degree to limit, fix, control, maintain, or regulate the price of any article of trade, manufacture, or use bought and sold in the State.3

112

Mississippi prohibits combinations, contracts, understandings, etc., expressed or implied, to limit, increase, or reduce the price of a commodity.

Mississippi requires the charter or articles of association or the law under which a clearing-house association is organized to prohibit it and its officers and managers from attempting to make or enforce any rule, regulation, agreement, or understanding in respect to (a) the fees, commissions, or other compensation chargeable by or payable to or to be charged by or paid to any member by its customers or otherwise for the collection- by or through such member or its agent or correspondent of checks, drafts, notes, or bills of exchange drawn upon banks, bankers, trust companies, or others that are not members of such associations or that are outside its boundaries; (b) the rates of discount or interest chargeable or to be charged by or to be paid to members on loans or discounts to or for customers or others; (c) the rates of interest to be allowed by members on deposits; and (d) the rates of exchange.5

Missouri prohibits pools, agreements, etc., to regulate, control, or fix the price of any article of manufacture, mechanism, commodity, etc., or anything whatever bought and sold, or the price to be paid. for property insurance, or to maintain said price when so regulated or fixed. Also all agreements or contracts, designed or made with a

1 Indiana, Stats., sec. 3878.

2 Michigan, P. A. 1905, No. 229, sec. 1.

* Minnesota, Stats. (1913), sec. 3973.

4 Mississippi, Code 1906, sec. 5002, as amended by Laws 1908, chap. 119, sec. 1.

Barataria Canning Co. v. Joulian, 80 Miss., 555 (1902).—The defendant contracted to sell to plaintiff, a competing manufacturer, all the cove oysters which he should pack during certain months except three carloads per month, and further agreed that these three carloads should not be sold at a lower price than that offered to the trade by the plaintiff. The contract was held void as an agreement to limit the price of a commodity within the prohibition of sections 4437, 4438, Code, 1892 (substantially similar to act cited). Mississippi, Laws 1914, chap. 124, sec. 65.

6 Missouri, Rev. Stats., chap. 98, sec. 10299, as amended in 1913.

view to increase, or which tend to increase, the market price of any product, commodity, or thing, or the price of property insurance.1

Montana prohibits any person, corporation, etc., directly or indirectly, from combining or forming any trust, or making any contract, for the purpose of fixing the price of any article of commerce, or product of the soil, for consumption by the people. The statute provides that "article of commerce" shall include gas, water, water power, electric light, and electric power. It is also unlawful for warehousemen to enter into any contract, agreement, combination or understanding with any other warehousemen at any railway station, whereby the price to be paid for any kind of grain at such station shall be fixed or in any manner affected.3

1 Missouri, R. S., chap. 98, sec. 10301, as amended in 1913.

State v. Firemen's Fund Ins. Co. et al., 52 S. W., 595 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1899).-Foreign fire insurance companies doing business in St. Joseph subscribed for the rate books issued by one who had fixed rates for a former association. The agents of the companies formed a "social club," and employed as secretary a man who had formerly been employed by the one who issued the rate books. To prevent rebates all agents submitted their monthly statements to the secretary of the club. Each policy written by an agent was put in an unsealed envelope, addressed to his company, and turned over to the secretary of the club, who compared it with the rate book, and if the premium charged did not correspond therewith, the agent was called upon for an explanation. The members of the club agreed to abide by the rates fixed, and fines were provided for departures from these rates. Held, that the club was a pool or trust, under the act of 1897, section 1 (similar to act cited), and that said companies had forfeited their right to do business in the State.

State v. Continental Tobacco Co., 177 Mo., 1 (1903).-Proceeding to forfeit right to do business in the State. Among other things it was alleged that the Continental Tobacco Co. purchased the business of a competitor and closed the factory. Held, that the antitrust law of 1897 which prohibits any corporation, etc., from creating or entering into any pool, trust agreement, etc., with any other corporation, etc., to regulate or fix the price of any article of manufacture or to maintain such price when so fixed and regulated, was not broad enough to prohibit one corporation, in good faith, in the legitimate pursuit of its business, from purchasing the assets of another corporation in a similar business.

State v. Armour Packing Co. et al., 173 Mo., 356 (1903).—Quo warranto proceedings to oust certain packers from doing business in State. Wholesale meat dealers selling from 65 to 80 per cent of all dressed beef and from 50 to 60 per cent of all dressed pork in St. Joseph, St. Louis, and Kansas City formed a voluntary association which fixed and controlled prices and apportioned territory. Held, a violation of antitrust law and defendants fined, subject to ouster if fine was not paid.

State v. Assurance Companies, 251 Mo., 278 (1913).-Attorney general in an information in nature of quo warranto charged that certain foreign fire-insurance companies agreed to unitedly withdraw from the State on a certain day and to cease, by concerted movement, to write insurance in the State. On demurrer, held that respondents had no legal right, by agreement, to withdraw in a body or to cancel their policies in pursuance of agreement; that the information stated a good cause of action; and that the court had jurisdiction to issue a temporary injunction in aid of or ancillary to a pending quo warranto writ, restraining said companies from withdrawing from the State and otherwise doing irreparable injury and canceling existing policies.

State v. Polar Wave Ice & Fuel Co., 169 S. W., 126 ( Mo., 1914).-The defendant corporation was organized to take over the business of seven companies engaged in furnishing ice in St. Louis. Three of the companies were wholesalers and the remainder retailers. The wholesalers controlled about 20 per cent of the wholesale trade of the city, and the retailers about 40 to 50 per cent of the retail trade. By a series of contracts and paper payments without the actual payment of any money, the stock of the seven companies was exchanged for stock of the defendant corporation. In quo warranto proceedings, it was alleged that the seven companies, before the forming of the defendant corporation, had a combination whereby they fixed and maintained the wholesale and retail prices of ice; and that the defendant corporation was formed to enable them more easily to fix and maintain the prices and control the ice trade in St. Louis. A referee recommended judgment for defendant, but on exceptions by the State the circuit court of St. Louis disapproved the findings and rendered a judgment ousting defendant of its charter rights, holding that its organization and incorporation was a violation of the Missouri antitrust statute (Rev. Stats., sec. 10301). On appeal the State supreme court affirmed the decision, but modified the judgment by making the ouster conditional.

* Montana, Laws 1909, chap. 97, sec. 1.

* Montana, Laws 1915, chap. 69, sec. 1.

New Mexico prohibits contracts or combinations having for their object or which shall operate to control the price of any article of manufacture or product of the soil or mine.1

New York prohibits contracts, agreements, etc., whereby competition in the State in the price of any article or commodity of common use is or may be restrained or prevented;2 and conspiracies to commit any act injurious to trade or commerce.3 Recent statutes

1 New Mexico, C. L. 1897, sec. 1292.

2 New York, Gen. Business Law, sec. 340.

Straus v. American Publishers' Association, 177 N. Y., 473 (1903); 193 N. Y., 496; 199 N. Y., 548; 231 U. S., 222 (1913).-The American Publishers' Association was composed of about 75 per cent of the publishers of copyrighted and uncopyrighted books in the United States, and the American Booksellers' Association included a majority of the booksellers throughout the United States. The associations adopted resolutions and made agreements obligating members to sell copyrighted books only to those maintaining retail prices on such books. Plaintiff in error, having cut prices, was boycotted by members of the association, and brought suit, praying that the combination and agreements be declared unlawful and that defendants be enjoined from acting thereunder or accomplishing the purpose thereof, and for damages. The Court of Appeals of New York held that the agreement as to copyrighted books was not illegal because of the copyright laws of the United States, but that as to uncopyrighted books it was a violation of State antitrust law. The Supreme Court of the United States held that the court "erred in holding that the agreement was justified by the copyright act, and was not within the denunciation of the Sherman Act, and in denying, for that reason alone, the right of the plaintiffs in error to recover under the State act as to copyrighted books."

Paine Lumber Co., Ltd., et al. v. Neal et al., 212 Fed., 259 (1913).-Complainants, manufacturers of wood products, alleged that the defendants, composed of officers and agents of the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, and of the Joint District Council of New York and vicinity of the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, certain union manufacturers of wood products, and a number of master carpenters, entered into agreements which, among other things, provided that "There shall be no restrictions against the use of any manufactured material except non-union or prisonmade," and that in pursuance of such agreements defendants had prevented the free sale and use of complainants' goods because they did not run so-called union shops. The court held the agreements to be in violation of the Sherman Antitrust Law and the New York State antitrust law (Gen. Business Law, sec. 340), and, in expressing an opinion in regard to whether article 54, section 580 of the New York Penal Law applied to these acts, stated that the gist of the offense is an agreement to prevent competition regardless of the motive of the parties; the prevention of competition in business being an "act injurious to trade" within the statute. However, relief by injunction was denied on the ground that such relief was not available to a private suitor to correct a general business situation in the case of employers or a general trade situation in the case of employees, and that there was ample remedy at law. (Affirmed by the Circuit Court of Appeals, 214 Fed., 82 [1914].)

N. Y. Penal Law, Art. LIV, sec. 580.

People v. Sheldon et al., 139 N. Y., 251, (1893).—This case was decided under a section (now Penal Code, art. 54, secs. 580-6) prohibiting conspiracies to commit any act injurious to trade or commerce, etc. Coal dealers of Lockport organized the Lockport Coal Exchange, raised prices 75 cents per ton, and eliminated competition. Held, no error to instruct jury that if the purpose of the agreement was to prevent competition in the price of coal between retail dealers it was illegal and justified the conviction of the defendants. Held further, that these provisions required the State not only to show an agreement but an overt act-in this case the raising of the price of coal.

Cummings v. Union Blue Stone Co. et al., 164 N. Y., 401 (1900).-The Blue Stone Association was formed by 15 dealers to prevent competition. The association designated the Blue Stone Co., one of its members, to act as sales agent for all bluestone. Sales were apportioned among producers according to a schedule, and prices were increased. One of the parties sued the company for breach of the contract, which was held void as contrary to public policy. Held, further, that the scope of the contract, and not the possible self-restraint of the parties to it, is the test of its validity, and that in a civil action it need not be shown that the article was one of prime necessity.

People v. Dwyer et al., 145 N. Y. Supp., 748 (1914).—The New York Live Poultry Dealers' Protective Association, composed of the principal poultry receivers in the New York market and controlling about 90 per cent of the poultry shipped to that city, and an association of poultry jobbers, including nearly all of the large wholesale dealers, formed an agreement for pooling their profits. The agreement, among other things, provided that the members of the jobbers association should purchase all of the poultry sent to the receivers at prices to be agreed upon each week. Independent receivers who failed to observe prices fixed by the association were embarrassed by having the members of the association purchase all poultry intended to be shipped them; and independent dealers who did not maintain association prices were either bought out or competing markets were established near by and price cutting resorted to for the purpose of embarrassing them. Nineteen of the parties were indicted for conspiracy under sec. 580 of the New York Penal Law (Consolidated Laws, chap. 40), and of these 13 were found guilty and sentenced to three months' imprisonment and a fine of $500 each imposed. On appeal to the appellate division of the Supreme Court the conviction was affirmed (160 N. Y. App. Div., 542). Later it was also affirmed by the Court of Appeals, 215 N. Y., 48.

also provide that it shall be a misdemeanor for any buyer of milk for shipment,' or commission merchant dealing in farm produce, to enter into any combination to fix prices; and provide further that for such cause the commissioner of agriculture may decline to grant or may revoke a license to conduct such business.

South Dakota prohibits combinations of capital or skill (1) to increase or reduce the price of commodities; (2) to fix any standard or figure whereby the price to the public shall be in any manner established or controlled.

The statute also makes it unlawful (1) for any person or persons, corporation, etc., to fix the price of any produce or commodity so as to obstruct or delay or prevent competition in such production or transportation, or in the purchase or sale of any product or commodity; (2) for any person, corporation, etc., in another State to directly or otherwise combine, agree, etc., with any person, corporation, etc., in the State, or for any person, corporation, etc., in the State so to combine, agree, etc., with any other person, corporation, etc., within or without the State, or for any two persons, corporations, etc., organized or existing without the State and doing business within the State, so to combine, agree, etc., to fix prices of any product or commodity so as to obstruct or prevent competition in the purchase or sale of any product or commodity.3

Kansas and Nebraska prohibit agreements, contracts, etc., between grain dealers or between grain dealers and any other person, corporation, etc., to fix the price which any grain dealer or dealers, or any other person, shall pay for grain, hogs, cattle, or stock."

Nebraska prohibits also agreements, contracts, etc., between lumber or coal dealers or between such dealers and any other person, corporation, etc., to fix the price or minimum price at which any lumber or coal dealer, or dealers, or any other person, shall sell lumber or coal.5

Another section of the Nebraska statutes prohibits any combination or agreement between fire insurance companies transacting business in the State, or their officers or employees, relating to rates, agents' commissions, or the manner of transacting business."

California prohibits the issuance or ownership of trust certificates, or entering into any contract, combination, etc., the purpose and effect of which shall be to place the management or control of such combinations or the manufactured product thereof in the hands of

1 N. Y. Laws 1913, chap. 408, secs. 57, 61.

* Idem, chap. 457, secs. 286, 289.

3 South Dakota, Laws 1909, chap. 224, secs. 1-5.

4 Kansas, Laws 1887, chap. 175, sec. 1; G. S., sec. 5182; Nebraska, R. S. (1913), sec. 8858.

Nebraska, R. S. (1913), sec. 4026.

• Idem, sec. 4022.

30035°-16-12