That eral court and the state appellate courts. [444] The majority opinion of the suWe are dealing here with a question preme court of Missouri further dwells necessarily of great nicety in determining upon a significance thought to attach the effect and the priority of liens upon to the purpose of Congress in repealreal estate, and the subject requires exact- ing § 3 of the Statute of 1888 as ness. Merely approximate conformity amended by the Statute of 1895. with reference to such a subject matter section thus amended specifically forwill not do, especially where complete con- bade any state statute seeking conformity is entirely possible. The supreme formity to require the docketing of a court of [443] Missouri in its opinion judgment or decree of a Federal court, or says it would take but a short time and the filing of a transcript thereof in any very little trouble to transcribe a judg- state office within the same county in ment of the Federal court sitting in a which the Federal judgment or decree county seat and to file it in the office of was rendered, in order to be a lien on the the clerk of the state circuit court in the property in that county, if the clerk of same place on the day of its rendi- the Federal court had a permanent office tion and thus put it on par with the lien and a judgment record open at all times of any judgment of the state circuit court for public inspection in such county. It rendered on the same day. It may be that is said that the repeal of that section inthe transcript of the judgment if proper- dicates Congress's intention to permit the ly filed even if the transcribing be de- requirement in the state statute that there layed, as in usual course it is likely to be should be some additional record in the for several days, would not prejudice the state court in the county where the Fedholder of a judgment in the Federal eral court sits of the Federal judgment court, because its lien would date from without destroying the required conformits rendition in the Federal court. The ity. Even if this be conceded, it does not risk to be run, however, is in the danger show that in order to secure conformity that the agent or attorney of a judgment there must not be a similar requirement creditor in the Federal court may forget for a formal record in the state court to have the judgment transcribed and filed of the county of its judgment to create a in the clerk's office of the circuit court lien. It is the inequality which permits of the county. Such forgetfulness by a lien instantly to attach to the rendition those charged with the duty is a factor of the judgment without more in the state to be considered and makes a real differ-court which does not so attach in the ence between the provision for the lien of the Federal court judgment and the instant attaching of a lien upon the entry of the state court judgment without further action. Federal court in that same county that prevents compliance with the requirement of § 1 of the Act of 1888. In the Mississippi case, above referred to, there was the same formality of enrollment within twenty days after the judgment in order to secure a lien in both the state court and the Federal court in the county where both sat. Reference is made by the state supreme court to Re Jackson Light & Traction Co. (C. C. A. 5th) 269 Fed. 223, a decision of the circuit court of appeals of the fifth circuit concerning a judgment rendered We think that the three sections 1555, in Mississippi holding that the required 1556, and 1554, do not secure the needed conformity was furnished by the state conformity in the creation, extent and statute. The statute required the enroll-operation of the resulting liens upon land ment of a judgment in the state court of as between Federal and state court judggeneral jurisdiction in order that it might ments. The lien of Federal court judgbecome a lien upon the property in the county of its jurisdiction, only if enrolled ments in Missouri therefore attaches to twenty days after the term of entry of [445] all lands of the judgment debtor the judgment. The judgments of the lying in the counties within the respective Federal court, the state supreme court jurisdictions of the two Federal district and the chancery courts also became liens courts in that state. This requires a from the time they were enrolled in the reversal in this case of judgment of the county where the land lay. We think Supreme Court of Missouri. The cause that case may well be distinguished from is remanded for further proceedings not this one because necessity of enrollment inconsistent with this opinion. was exacted as to every court. 71 L. ed. 1145 FOSTER CLINE, as District Attorney for, be controlled or established, to make or exethe City and County of Denver, State of Colorado, Appt., 3. A state Anti-trust Law denouncing conspiracies and combinations of persons and corporations to create and carry out restrictions in trade and commerce preventing the full and free pursuit of any lawful business, to increase or reduce the price of merchandise, to prevent competition in the making, transportation, sale, or purchase of commodities or merchandise, to fix any standard of figures whereby the price shall Note. On injunction to restrain prosecution of criminal or quasi criminal nature-see annotations to Crighto v. Dahmer, 21 L.R.A. 84; Hall v. Dunn, 25 L.R.A.(N.S.) 193; Denton v. McDonald, 34 L.R.A.(N.S.) 453; Alexander v. Elkins, L.R.A.1916C, 263; and Dobbins v. Los Angeles, 49 L. ed. U. S. 169. On injunction against enforcement of state statute see annotation to Ex parte Young, 13 L.R.A. (N.S.) 932. As to vagueness or indefiniteness of statute as rendering it unconstitutional or inoperative-see annotation to Connally v. General Constr. Co. 70 L. ed. U. S. 322. As to illegal trusts under modern antitrust laws-see annotation to Whitwell v. Continental Tobacco Co. 64 L.R.A. 689. As to who may raise objection that a statute contains an unconstitutional discrimination-see annotation to Pugh v. Pugh, 32 L.R.A. (N.S.) 954. cute any contract or agreement to bind the participants not to sell under a common standard, or to keep the prices of any article at a fixed or agreed figure, or establish or settle the price between themselves so as to preclude a free and unrestricted competition among themselves, or to pool, combine, or unite any interest they may have in such business of making, selling, or transporting that the price of the article may be affected, is so vague and uncertain in its description as to what shall constitute a criminal offense as to be invalid under the due process clause of the Federal Constitution, where the act contains provisos that no agreement shall be deemed unlawful the basis and purposes of which are to conduct operations at a reasonable profit, or to market at a reasonable profit those products that cannot be otherwise so marketed, and that it will not be deemed to be unlawful for persons, firms, or corporations engaged in the business of selling or manufacturing commodities of a similar or like character to employ, form, organize, or own an interest in any association, firm, or corporation having as its object or purpose the transportation, marketing, or delivering of such commodities. APPEAL by defendant from a decree of the District Court of the United States for the District of Colorado enjoining proceedings to enforce an Antitrust Act. Reversed in part. See same case below, 9 F. (2d) 176. Mr. Jean S. Breitenstein argued the cause, and, with Messrs. William L. Boatright, Paul M. Segal, and A. L. Betke, filed a brief for appellant: Federal courts do not enjoin the further prosecution of pending criminal cases in state courts. Essanay Film Mfg. Co. v. Kane, 258 U. S. 358, 66 L. ed. 658, 42 Sup. Ct. Rep. 318; Hull v. Burr, 234 U. S. 712, 58 L. ed. 1557, 34 Sup. Ct. Rep. 892; Mutual Reserve Fund Life Asso. v. Phelps, 190 U. S. 147, 47 L. ed. 987, 23 Sup. Ct. Rep. 707; United States v. Parkhurst-Davis Mercantile Co. 176 U. S. 317, 44 L. ed. 485, 20 Sup. Ct. Rep. 423; The Mamie (Parcher v. Cuddy) 110 U. S. 742, 28 L. ed. 313, 4 Sup. Ct. Rep. 194; Dial v. Reynolds, 96 U. S. 340, 24 L. ed. 644; Haines v. Carpenter, 91 U. S. 254, 23 L. ed. 345; Diggs v. Wolcott, 4 Cranch, 179, 2 L. ed. 587; Story, Eq. Jur. § 893; Re Sawyer, 124 U. S. 200, 31 L. ed. 402, 8 Sup. Ct. Rep. 482; Harkrader v. Wadley, 172 U. S. 148, 43 L. ed. 399, 19 Sup. Ct. The Colorado Anti-trust Law does not violate the equal protection of the laws clause of the 14th Amendment by exempting labor and agricultural products. trust Law providing for the forfeiture of the charters, rights, and franchises of a corporation violating it do not invalidate it under the due process clause of the 14th Amendment. Waters-Pierce Oil Co. v. Texas, 177 U. S. 28, 43, 44 L. ed. 657, 663, 20 Sup. Ct. Rep. 518; Waters-Pierce Oil Co. v. Texas, 212 U. S. 86, 111, 53 L. ed. 417, 430, 29 Sup. Ct. Rep. 220. The Colorado Anti-trust Law does not violate the 14th Amendment on the ground that it fails to establish an ascertainable standard of guilt. Campbell v. People, 72 Colo. 213, 210 Pac. 841; Connally v. General Constr. Co. 269 U. S. 385, 70 L. ed. 322, 46 Sup. Ct. Rep. 126; Hygrade Provision Co. v. Sherman, 266 U. S. 497, 69 L. ed. 402, 45 Sup. Ct. Rep. 141; Nash v. United States, 229 U. S. 373, 37 L. ed. 1232, 33 Sup. Ct. Rep. 780; Waters-Pierce Oil Co. v. Texas, 212 U. S. 86, 109, 53 L. ed. 417, 429, 29 Sup. Ct. Rep. 220. The Colorado Anti-trust Act is indefinite and furnishes no ascertainable standard of guilt. International Harvester Co. v. Missouri, 234 U. S. 199, 210, 58 L. ed. 1276, 1281, 52 L.R.A.(N.S.) 525, 34 Sup. Ct. Rep. 859; Duplex Printing Press Co. v. Deering, 254 U. S. 443, 469, 65 L. ed. 349, 358, 16 A.L.R. 196, 41 Sup. Ct. Rep. 172; Rifle Potato Growers Co-op. Asso. v. Smith, 78 Colo. 171. 240 Pac. 937; Gulf, C. & S. F. R. Co. v. Ellis, 165 U. S. 150, 41 L. ed. 666, 17 Sup. Ct. Rep. 255; Magoun v. Illinois Trust & Sav. Bank, 170 U. S. 283, 42 L. ed. 1037, 18 Sup. Ct. Rep. 594; American Sugar Ref. Co. v. Louisiana, 179 U. S. 89, 45 L. ed. 102, 21 Sup. Ct. Rep. 43; Missouri, K. & T. R. Co. v. May, 194 U. S. 267, Mr. Ernest B. Fowler argued the 48 L. ed. 971, 24 Sup. Ct. Rep. 638; cause, and, with Mr. A. J. Fowler, filed Northern Wisconsin Co-op. Tobacco Pool a brief for appellees: v. Bekkedal, 182 Wis. 571, 197 N. W. 936; Potter v. Dark Tobacco Growers Co-op. Asso. 201 Ky. 441, 257 S. W. 33; List v. Burley Tobacco Growers' Co-op. United States v. Trenton Potteries Co. Asso. 114 Ohio St. 361, 151 N. E. 471: 273 U. S. 392, ante, 700, 50 A.L.R. Dark Tobacco Growers' Co-op. Asso. v. 989, 47 Sup. Ct. Rep. 377; Yu Cong Dunn, 150 Tenn. 614, 266 S. W. 308; Eng v. Trinidad, 271 U. S. 500, 518, 70 Kansas Wheat Growers Asso. v. Charlet, L. ed. 1059, 1066, 46 Sup. Ct. Rep. 619; 118 Kan. 765, 236 Pac. 657; Minnesota United States v. L. Cohen Grocery Co. Wheat Growers Co-op. Marketing Asso. 255 U. S. 81, 65 L. ed. 516, 14 A.L.R. v. Huggins, 162 Minn. 471, 203 N. W. 1045, 41 Sup. Ct. Rep. 298; International 420; Tobacco Growers Co-op. Asso. v. Harvester Co. v. Kentucky, 234 U. S. Jones, 185 N. C. 265, 33 A.L.R. 231, 117 216, 58 L. ed. 1284, 34 Sup. Ct. Rep. S. E. 174; Brown v. Staple Cotton Co- 853; Collins v. Kentucky, 234 U. S. 634, op. Asso. 132 Miss. 859, 96 So. 849: Texas 58 L. ed. 1510, 34 Sup. Ct. Rep. 924; Farm Bureau Cotton Asso. v. Stovall, United States v. Pennsylvania R. Co. 113 Tex. 273, 253 S. W. 1101; Oregon 242 U. S. 208, 61 L. ed. 251. 37 Sup. Ct. Growers' Co-op. Asso. v. Lentz, 107 Or. Rep. 95; United States v. Reese, 92 U. 561, 212 Pac. 811; Washington Cran- S. 214, 220, 23 L. ed. 563, 565; United berry Growers Asso. v. Moore, 117 Wash. States v. Brewer, 139 U. S. 278, 288, 35 430, 25 A.L.R. 1077, 201 Pac. 773, 204 L. ed. 190, 193, 11 Sup. Ct. Rep. 538; Pac. 811; Anaheim Citrus Fruit Asso. v. Tozer v. United States (C. C.) 4 Inters. Yeoman, 51 Cal. App. 759, 197 Pac. 959: Com. Rep. 245, 52 Fed. 917; Louisville Ex parte Baldwin County Producers' & N. R. Co. v. Railroad Commission (C. Corp. 203 Ala. 345, 83 So. 69; Castor- C.) 19 Fed. 679; Chicago & N. W. R. land Milk & Cheese Co. v. Shantz, 179 Co. v. Dey (C. C.) 1 L.R.A. 744, 2 Inters. N. Y. Supp. 131; Tobacco Growers Co.op. Asso. v. Patterson, 187 N. C. 252, 121 S. E. 631; Poultry Producers v. Barlow, 189 Cal. 278, 208 Pac. 93; Nebraska Wheat Growers Asso. v. Norquest, 113 Neb. 731, 204 N. W. 798; California Bean Growers' Asso. v. Rindge Land & Nav. Co. 199 Cal. 168, 47 A.L.R. 904, 248 Pac. 658. Com. Rep. 325, 35 Fed. 866; Louisville & N. R. Co. v. Com. 99 Ky. 132, 33 L.R.A. 209, 59 Am. St. Rep. 457, 35 S. W. 129; Hayes v. State, 11 Ga. App. 371, 75 S. E. 523. The Colorado Anti-trust Act denies appellees the equal protection of the laws. Connolly v. Union Sewer Pipe Co. 184 U. S. 540, 46 L. ed. 679, 22 Sup. Ct. Rep. The provisions of the Colorado Anti-431; Cox v. Texas, 202 U. S. 446, 450, 50 L. ed. 1099, 1101, 26 Sup. Ct. Rep. 671; Ozan Lumber Co. v. Union County Nat. Bank, 207 U. S. 251, 257, 52 L. ed. 195, 197, 28 Sup. Ct. Rep. 89; International Harvester Co. v. Missouri, 234 U. S. 199, 215, 58 L. ed. 1276, 1283, 52 L.R.A. (N.S.) 525, 34 Sup. Ct. Rep. 859; Otis v. Parker, 187 U. S. 606, 610, 47 L. ed. 323, 328, 23 Sup. Ct. Rep. 168; Billings v. Illinois, 188 U. S. 97, 102, 47 L. ed. 400, 403, 23 Sup. Ct. Rep. 272; Missouri v. Dockery, 191 U. S. 165, 48 L. ed. 133, 63 L.R.A. 571, 24 Sup. Ct. Rep. 53; Dobbins v. Los Angeles, 195 U. S. 223, 236, 49 L. ed. 169, 175, 25 Sup. Ct. Rep. 18; Cook v. Marshall County, 196 U. S. 261, 274, 49 L. ed. 471, 476, 25 Sup. Ct. Rep. 233; Halter v. Nebraska, 205 U. S. 34, 44, 51 L. ed. 696, 703, 27 Sup. Ct. Rep. 419, 10 Ann. Cas. 525; Continental Wall Paper Co. v. Louis Voight & Sons Co. 212 U. S. 227, 260, 53 L. ed. 486, 504, 29 Sup. Ct. Rep. 280; Singer Sewing Mach. Co. v. Brickell, 233 U. S. 305, 315, 58 L. ed. 974, 979, 34 Sup. Ct. Rep. 493; Truax v. Corrigan, 257 U. S. 312, 335, 66 L. ed. 254, 264, 27 A.L.R. 375, 42 Sup. Ct. Rep. 124; Radice v. New York, 264 U. S. 292, 296, 68 L. ed. 690, 695, 44 Sup. Ct. Rep. 325; Brown v. Jacobs' Pharmacy Co. 115 Ga. 429, 57 L.R.A. 547, 90 Am. St. Rep. 126, 41 S. E. 553; State v. Cudahy Packing Co. 33 Mont. 179, 114 Am. St. Rep. 804, 82 Pac. 833, 8 Ann. Cas. 717; State ex rel. Atty. Gen. v. Waters-Pierce Oil Co. Tex. Civ. App., 67 S. W. 1057; United States v. Armstrong (D. C.) 265 Fed. 683; United States v. Yount (D. C.) 267 Fed. 861. A Federal court will enjoin the enforcement of an unconstitutional state statute where property rights are in vaded. U. S. 362, 38 L. ed. 1014, 4 Inters. Com. Mr. Hudson Moore also argued the cause, and, with Mr. Wilbur F. Denious, filed a brief for appellees: The Colorado Anti-trust Law is unconstitutional because it violates the due process and equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment in that it does not furnish an guilt. ascertainable standard of Campbell v. People, 72 Colo. 213, 210 V. Trenton Pac. 841; United States Potteries Co. 273 U. S. 392, ante, 700, 50 A.L.R. 989, 47 Sup. Ct. Rep. 377; Connally v. General Constr. Co. 269 U. S. 385, 70 L. ed. 322, 46 Sup. Ct. Rep. 126; United States v. L. Cohen Grocery Co. 255 U. S. 81, 65 L. ed. 516, 14 A.L.R. 1045, 41 Sup. Ct. Rep. 298; Tedrow v. A. T. Lewis & Son Dry Goods Co. 255 U. S. 98, 65 L. ed. 524, 41 Sup. Ct. Rep. 303; Weeds v. United States, 255 U. S. 109, 65 L. ed. 537, 41, Sup. Ct. Rep. 306; Kinnane v. Detroit Creamery Co. 255 U. S. 102, 65 L. ed. 531, 41 Sup. Ct. Rep. 304; United States v. Pennsylvania R. Co. 242 U. S. 208, 61 L. ed. 251, 33 Sup. Ct. Rep. 95; International Harvester Co. v. Kentucky, 234 U. S. 216, 58 L. ed. 1284, 34 Sup. Ct. Rep. 853; Collins v. Kentucky, 234 U. S. 634, 58 L. ed. 1510, 34 Sup. Ct. Rep. 924; American Seeding Mach. Co. v. Kentucky, 236 U. S. 660, 59 L. ed. 773, 35 Sup. Ct. Rep. 456; Missouri P. R. Co. v. Nebraska, 217 U. S. 196, 54 L. ed. 727, 30 Sup. Ct. Rep. 461, 18 Ann. Cas. 989; United States v. Brewer, 139 U. S. 278, 35 L. ed. 190, 11 Sup. Ct. Rep. 538; United States v. Trans-Missouri Freight Asso. 166 U. S. 290, 41 L. ed. 1007, 17 Sup. Ct. Rep. 540; United States v. Capital Traction Co. 34 App. D. C. 592, 19 Ann. Cas. 68; United States v. Reese, 92 U. S. 214, 23 L. ed. 563; Louisville & N. R. Co. v. Com. 99 Ky. 132, 33 L.R.A. 209, 59 Am. St. Rep. 457, 35 S. W. 129; Tozer v. United States (C. C.) 4 Inters. Com. Rep. 245, 52 Fed. 917; Detroit Creamery Co. v. Kinnane (D. C.) 264 Fed. 845; State v. Lantz, 90 W. Va. 738, 26 A.L.R. 894, 111 S. E. 766. Risty v. Sioux Falls, 270 U. S. 378, 70 L. ed. 641, 46 Sup. Ct. Rep. 236; Terrace v. Thompson, 263 U. S. 197, 214, 68 L. ed. 255, 273, 44 Sup. Ct. Rep. 15; Tyson Bros.-United Theatre Ticket offices v. Banton, 273 U. S. 418, ante, 718, A.L.R., 47 Sup. Ct. Rep. 426; Packard v. Banton, 264 U. S. 140, 68 L. ed. 596, 44 Sup. Ct. Rep. 257; Truax v. Raich, 239 U. S. 33, 60 L. ed. 131, L.R.A.1916D, 545, 36 Sup. Ct. Rep. 7, Ann. Cas. 1917B, 283: Philadelphia Co. v. Stimson, 223 U. S. 605, 56 L. ed. 570, 32 Sup. Ct. Rep. 340; Ex parte Young, 209 U. S. 123, 52 L. ed. 714, 13 L.R.A.(N.S.) 932, 28 Sup. Ct. Rep. 441, 14 Ann. Cas. 764; Dobbins The Colorado Anti-trust Law is unv. Los Angeles, 195 U. S. 223, 49 L. ed. constitutional because it violates the due 169, 25 Sup. Ct. Rep. 18; Davis & F. process and equal protection clauses of Mfg. Co. v. Los Angeles, 189 U. S. 207, the 14th Amendment in exempting from 47 L. ed. 778, 23 Sup. Ct. Rep. 498; its provisions combinations harvesting, Reagan v. Farmers Loan & T. Co. 154 marketing, or dealing in agricultural products. Rifle Potato Growers Co-op. sitting, granting a permanent injunction Asso. v. Smith, 78 Colo. 171, 240 Pac. against the enforcement by a state officer 937; Connolly v. Union Sewer Pipe Co. of a state law on the ground of its un184 U. S. 540, 46 L. ed. 679, 22 Sup. constitutionality. The bill was brought Ct. Rep. 431; Beatrice Creamery Co. v. Cline (D. C.) 9 F. (2d) 176; Swiss Oil Corp. v. Shanks, 273 U. S. 407, ante, 709, 47 Sup. Ct. Rep. 393. Threatened proceedings, civil or criminal, under unconstitutional statutes, will be enjoined where necessary to protect property rights. Philadelphia Co. v. Stimson, 223 U. S. 605, 56 L. ed. 570, 32 Sup. Ct. Rep. 340; Truax v. Raich, 239 U. S. 33, 60 L. ed. 131, L.R.A.1916D, 545, 36 Sup. Ct. Rep. 7, Ann. Cas. 1917B, 283; Kennington v. Palmer, 255 U. S. 100, 65 L. ed. 528, 41 Sup. Ct. Rep. 303; Terrace v. Thompson, 263 U. S. 197, 68 L. ed. 255, 44 Sup. Ct. Rep. 15; Packard v. Banton, 264 U. S. 140, 68 L. ed. 596, 44 Sup. Ct. Rep. 257; Hygrade Provision Co. v. Sherman, 266 U. S. 497, 69 L. ed. 402, 45 Sup. Ct. Rep. 141; Tyson & Bro.-United Theatre Ticket Offices v. Banton, 273 U. S. 418, ante, 718, A.L.R. 47 Sup. Ct. Rep. 426. The question as to whether the court will enjoin a pending prosecution is not properly here for review. Masterson v. Howard, 18 Wall. 99, 21 L. ed. 764; Thomson v. Wooster, 114 U. S. 104, 29 L. ed. 105, 5 Sup. Ct. Rep. 788. by the Frink Dairy Company, the Windsor Farm Dairy Company, and the Climax Dairy Company, corporations of Colorado, and H. Brown Cannon, Clarence Frink, A. T. McClintock, and Morris Robinson, citizens and residents of the same state, against Foster Cline, the district attorney for the city and county of Denver, Colorado. The bill alleges that the suit involves for decision the question of the validity under the Constitution of the United States of what is known as the Colorado Anti-trust Act, being chapter 161 of the Session Laws of the State of Colorado, for 1913, approved April 17th of that [450] year. It avers that the three dairy companies have been separately conducting for years in Denver, Colorado, and its vicinity, the sale and distribution of milk, butter and all manner of dairy products, that each has invested in its business more than $100,000, that they are also engaged in interstate commerce, buying and selling from without the limits of the state; that the individual plaintiffs, Cannon, Frink, and Morrison, are respectively officers and stockholders of the three plaintiff companies, that McClintock, the other individual plaintiff, is an officer and stockholder of the Beatrice Creamery Company, a corporation of Delaware also in the dairy business in Denver, that the individual plaintiffs, experienced dairymen, by painstaking effort, fair dealing, and careful management, have gained Davis & F. Mfg. Co. v. Los Angeles, thousands of customers, and a well-estab189 U. S. 207, 47 L. ed. 778, 23 Sup. Ct. lished trade, and that their companies, in Rep. 498; Truax v. Raich, 239 U. S. addition to their tangible property and 33, 60 L. ed. 131, L.R.A.1916D, 545, 36 assets, have good wills of great value. Sup. Ct. Rep. 7, Ann. Cas. 1917B, 283; The bill sets out in full the Colorado Missouri v. Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co. 241 Anti-trust Law which punishes as a U. S. 533, 60 L. ed. 1148, 36 Sup. Ct. crime combinations of persons and corRep. 715; Oklahoma Natural Gas Co.porations to restrain trade or commerce v. Russell, 261 U. S. 290, 67 L. ed. 659, 43 Sup. Ct. Rep. 353; Dearborn Pub. Co. v. Fitzgerald (D. C.) 271 Fed. 479; Springhead Spinning Co. v. Riley, L. R. 6 Eq. 551; Oklahoma Natural Gas Co. v. Russell, 261 U. S. 290, 67 L. ed. 659, 43 Sup. Ct. Rep. 353. Injunction will be granted restraining pending prosecutions under invalid statutes where their continuance will invade and destroy valuable property rights, and relief cannot be had in state courts. with certain exceptions, and makes it the duty of the defendant, the district attorney, to prosecute alleged violations thereof and to institute actions for forfeiture of charters of associations engaged therein. All contracts violating the act are avoided; violation of the act is made a good defense to a suit for merchandise Mr. Chief Justice Taft delivered the that was sold in pursuance of a combinaopinion of the court: tion under it; and a right of action for This is a direct appeal under § 238 of damages against the combiners is given to the Judicial Code, as amended by the any one injured by the combination. One Act of February 13, 1925, chap. 229, 43 charge of the bill, among others, is that Stat. at L. 936, U. S. C. title 28, § 345, the act violates the 14th Amendment of from a final decree of the United States the Constitution, in that it deprives the district court of Colorado, three judges plaintiffs of their liberty without due |