it was shown that the price demanded was the reasonable worth and value of the materials. As yet there has been no decision of any appellate tribunal as to the validity of this particular phase of anti-trust legislation.

The validity of a provision of this character has not, as yet (July, 1906), been directly passed upon by the Supreme Court of the United States.

The question arose, indirectly in action, under the AntiTrust Law of Illinois, approved June 20, 1893, containing a similar provision to that contained in the Missouri statute, relieving the purchaser from liability, in a suit by the trust, to recover the purchase price of goods sold. (Connolly v. Union Sewer Pipe Co., 184 U. S. 540.) In that case, however, the Anti-Trust Law of Illinois was declared unconstitutional, for the reason that, by its terms, it was made applicable to certain persons and products, and inapplicable as to others, namely “agricultural products, or live stock, while in the hands of the producer or raiser." (See Connolly Case, infra.)

It might be claimed, successfully, that such a statute deprives a person of his property without due process of law. The parties may not be in pari delicto. But a suit at law is not a proceeding in equity and it might be urged that the only remedy for engaging in a criminal conspiracy in restraint of trade, in addition to fine and imprisonment and possibly confiscation, would be by injunction and dissolution of the trust. The law may also properly provide that an injured party may sue the trust for the injury which it has occasioned, and may recover treble damages. The punishment by fine and imprisonment, or by confiscation or forfeiture, is inflicted as between the public and the offender, as the confiscation inures to the State, as provided in section 6 of the Sherman Act and in section 76 of the Wilson bill, which is still in force.*

In Connolly v. Union Sewer Pipe Co., 184 U. S. 540, above referred to, the pipe company, an Ohio corporation,

For text of the Sherman Act and of the Wilson Bill, see Snyder's Interstate Commerce Act, pages 298 and 305.

LIABILITY FOR GOODS PURCHASED FROM TRUST.

125

doing business in Illinois, sued Connolly, a citizen of Illinois, to recover upon notes given by defendant to secure the purchase price of pipe sold by the company to Connolly, and also to recover the purchase price of pipe due upon open account. The defense was that the pipe company was a trust, and an illegal combination at common law; that it was a trust within the purview of the Sherman Act, and finally that it was a trust carrying on business as such in violation of the Illinois Anti-Trust Law of June 20, 1893. The latter act contained a provision whereby a purchaser, sued by the trust for goods sold, might be relieved of his purchase, and in a suit to recover for goods sold might plead the statute as a defense to the action. The several defenses were overruled, and plaintiff had judgment, which was affirmed by the Supreme Court of the United States, in 184 U. S. 540. As to the Anti-Trust Law of Illinois, the court said that as its provisions were applicable to certain persons, and inapplicable to others, because section 9 of the act declared that its provisions "shall not apply to agricultural products, or live stock while in the hands of the producer or raiser," the act was repugnant to the Fourteenth Amendment, as denying to some within its jurisdiction of "the equal protection of the laws." On this ground the Illinois statute was held to be unconstitutional and void. (Connolly v. Union Sewer Co., 184 U. S. 540.)

The same defer se was interposed under the Anti-Trust Law of Missouri, Rev. Stat. Mo., 1899, §§ 8965, 8970. The defenses as to the common law, and the Sherman Act were overruled, on the authority of the Connolly Case, supra. As to the Missouri Anti-Trust Act, the court held that it could not apply to a contract for the sale of goods to be manufactured by the vendor in another State (Pennsylvania), and delivered to the vendee in Missouri, because such a contract relates directly to interstate commerce, to which the law of Missouri could have no application. (Hadley Dean Plate Glass Co. v. Highland Glass Co., 143 Fed. Rep. 242. Circuit Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit, January 19,

A provision similar to that contained in the Missouri statute, supra, will be found in the Anti-Trust Law of Illinois (Act of June 11, 1891), and it was held that in an action for goods sold the defense that the seller was a trust could not be sustained. That the issue tendered by plaintiff in such an action could not be met by a collateral issue, involving the question as to whether the plaintiff or seller was a trust or combination or a member thereof, within the statute. That before such a defense could become available there must be instituted a direct proceeding before a competent tribunal, brought for the purpose of determining whether the seller is an unlawful trust or a member of an unlawful combination within the statute. (Lafayette Bridge Co. v. City of Streator, 105 Fed. Rep. 729.)

X. STATE ANTI-TRUST LAWS ENUMERATED.

§ 60. State Anti-Trust Laws Enumerated. The condition of State legislation, throughout the United States, bearing on the subject of trusts and conspiracies in restraint of trade and commerce, will appear by a reference to the statutes in force January, 1906, in the various States, as follows:

Alabama.-Laws 1903, chap. 395, approved October 2d, confers and limits powers of business corporations. Contains no special anti-trust provisions. Act approved Sept. 26, 1903, chap. 329, prohibits boycotting, picketing, and blacklisting.

Alaska.- Governed by the provisions of the Sherman Act, approved July 2, 1890. Section 3 of the act extends its provisions to the Territories and to the District of Columbia.

Arizona.- Governed by the provisions of the Sherman Act, approved July 2, 1990. Section 3 of the act extends its provisions to the Territories and to the District of Columbia.

Arkansas. Acts of March 16, 1897, and March 6, 1899. Similar to the Georgia act. Penalty, fine and imprisonment. Act of 1899 provides for fine only.*

66

California. Civil Code of California, § 1673, declares that every contract by which any one is restrained from exercising

These penalties are in addition to penalty forfeiting charter of domestic and banishment of foreign corporation, which are included in nearly all the

laws.

STATE ANTI-TRUST LAWS.

127

a lawful profession, trade, or business of any kind, otherwise than as provided in the next two sections, is to that extent void." The two sections referred to relate to transfer of partnership and good-will, and agreements not to carry on similar business in same city or town.

Colorado.- Governed by the rules of the common law. No statute up to 1906.

Connecticut.― Governed by the rules of the common law. No statute up to 1906.

Delaware.— Governed by the rules of the common law. No statute up to 1906.

District of Columbia.— Governed by provisions of the Sherman Act, approved July 2, 1890. Section 3 of the act extends its provisions to the District of Columbia and the Territories.

Florida.— Governed by rules of the common law, except as to sale of Florida fed beef, or fresh meat of any edible animal within the State. Act approved June 11, 1897, prohibits trusts relating to sale of such beef and meats within the State. Laws 1897, chap. 4534.

Georgia.- Laws 1896, chap. 122. Penalties as to individuals include fine and imprisonment.

Idaho. Constitution, art. 11, § 18, prohibits monopolies, and directs Legislature to pass laws to enforce the provision with appropriate penalties. No statute up to 1906.

Illinois. Act of June 11, 1891; June 20, 1892, and June 20, 1893; Criminal Code, §§ 269a, 269t. Relieves purchaser in suit by the trust. Declared unconstitutional in Connolly v. Union Sewer Pipe Co., 184 U. S. 540. See ante, page 124.

Indiana.- Act approved March 3, 1399. Laws 1899, chap. 148. Penalty may include imprisonment.

Indian Territory.- Governed by provisions of Sherman Act, approved July 2, 1890. Section 3 of the act extends its provisions to the Territories. See also act of Congress approved Feb. 18, 1901. Became a State with Oklahoma. June 14, 1996. May now make its own laws.

Iowa.- Act approved May 6, 1890. Code. $$ 5060, 5062. Penalty may include fine or imprisonment, or both.

Kansas.- Act of March 8, 1897: Act of 1599, and Laws 1901, chap. 145. Penalty under Act of 1897 is both fine and imprisonment. Under Act of 1899, penalty might be either. Re

lieves purchaser in suit by the trust. Validity of act sustained in Smiley v. Kansas, 196 U. S., see ante. § 58.

Kentucky. Constitution prohibits pooling by railroads. Section 201 prohibits trusts and monopolies, section 198. Kentucky Statutes, §§ 3915-3921. Penalty, fine or imprisonment, or both.

Louisiana.- Constitution prohibits trusts and monopolies, section 190. Prohibited by act approved July 7, 1892, Act 90. Punishment, fine or imprisonment, or both.

Maine.- Laws 1904, chap. 47, §§ 53 and 55.

Maryland.- Constitution declares "that monopolies are odious, contrary to the spirit of a free government, and the principles of commence, and ought not to be suffered." Declaration of Rights, section 41. No statute up to 1906.

Massachusetts.- Governed by the rules of the common law. No statute up to 1906.

Michigan. Act approved June 23, 1899. Laws, chap. 255. Penalty, fine or imprisonment, or both.

Minnesota. Acts approved April 20, 1891; April 8, 1893; Laws 1899, chap. 359; and April 10, 1901, chap. 194. Penalty, fine and imprisonment.

Mississippi.- Laws 1900, chap. 88, approved March 12, 1900. Penalty, fine or imprisonment, or both.

Missouri.-Laws 1891, chap. 143; Rev. Stat. 8977. Relieves purchaser in suit by the trust.

1899, §§ 8965See ante. § 59.

Montana.- Constitution, art. 15, § 20; Penal Code, chap. 8, SS 321, 325.

Nebraska. Elaborate statute, Laws 1897, chap. 79. Penalty, fine only. Relieves purchaser in suit by the trust.

Nevada.- Governed by the rules of the common law. Νο statute up to 1906.

New Hampshire.— Governed by the rules of the common law. No statute up to 1906.

New Jersey. Governed by the rules of the common law. No statute up to 1906.

New Mexico.- Governed by provisions of Sherman Act, approved July 2, 1890. Section 3 of act extends its provisions to the Territories.