OF

on them in the United States, whereby defendant corporation was to acquire all rights to their patents, and receive promises that they would not for fifty years be interested in the manufacture of any harrow except by license of defendant, and they were to receive in payment stock of defendant corporation. It was to license each manufacturer to continue making the same harrows that it was making at the time of the contract. Defendant corporation was to have the sole power to fix the schedule of prices at which harrows should be sold. Plaintiffs agreed to turn in their business and take stock in the same way the others did; but now, very little having been done under the contract, plaintiffs seek to have it set aside as void, because against public policy.

Opinion.

The contract provides for a monopoly of the spring-tooth harrow business long after the patents have expired. It is unnecessary to consider what would be the law if the monopoly were to last only during the life of the patents. The agreement is for restraint of trade in an article of common use and it should not be upheld. While the contract is not wholly performed, the parties may withdraw and the courts will aid them. Plaintiffs should be granted relief.

De Witt Wire Cloth Co. v. New Jersey Wire Cloth Co. 9 Ry. and Corp. L. J., 314.

Statement.

February, 1891.

Three corporations and two partnerships, engaged in the manufacture and sale of wire cloth, entered into an agreement to regulate the price of that article. They agreed not to sell at a lower price than that fixed by the association. Opinion.

The court of common pleas in the city of New York held this contract illegal, and refused to aid the parties in anyway when they had trouble among themselves over the contract.

Sylvanus Judd v. Dennis Harrington.

139 N. Y., 105. Statement.

October, 1893.

Certain parties who were brokers and dealers in sheep and lambs executed an agreement, by its terms organizing an association for the purpose "of guarding and protecting their

business interests from loss by unreasonable competition," by which they agreed to pool their commissions, except such as should be agreed to be paid to a certain butchers' association. The association so formed entered into an agreement with the butchers' association whereby the brokers were to sell only to the butchers, and the butchers to buy only of the brokers belonging to their respective associations.

Opinion.

In an action brought by plaintiff as treasurer of the brokers' association against one of its members to recover damages stipulated therein for a breach of the agreement, it was held that the two agreements were to be taken and considered together; that they were intended to control the market, fix the price and destroy competition, and were therefore void. The public might be prejudiced; but whether they were so in fact was not material.

Ernest St. George Lough et al. v. .A. Emilius Outerbridge et al. 143 N. Y., 271. Statement.

October, 1894.

Defendant's regular charge for carrying freight from New York to Barbadoes island was forty cents per barrel; but during the week in which El Callao, a rival boat, was loading, defendant offered to carry freight for twenty-five cents per barrel, provided the shipper would agree to send all his freight that week by its line. Plaintiff demanded that defendant carry his freight for twenty-five cents a barrel during said week, but would not agree to ship all his goods on defendant's boat. Defendant refused to carry at twenty-five cents, and plaintiff brings suit to compel him, on the ground that defendant's condition need not be complied with because it tends to create an illegal monopoly.

Opinion.

Forty cents a barrel was a fair price, and a common carrier has a right to exact a fair price. If a carrier offers to carry freight for less than a fair price upon certain conditions, in order to be entitled to the lower rate the shipper must comply with the required conditions. The means employed by the defendant are lawful; and one has a right to use all lawful means to secure custom for himself.

Order refused.

The People of the State of New York v. The Milk Exchange.

145 N. Y., 267. Statement.

March, 1895.

About ninety dealers in milk and cream in New York City formed defendant corporation. This corporation gave the directors power to fix the prices to be paid by these dealers for milk and cream; the members were not to pay any other price than that fixed by the board. The people bring this suit to have the corporation dissolved, on the ground that it has formed an unlawful combination and conspiracy in restraint of trade.

Opinion.

That a combination to effect such a purpose is inimical to the interests of the public, and that all contracts designed to effect such an end are contrary to public policy, and therefore, illegal, is too well settled by adjudicated cases to be questioned at this day.

Order of dissolution granted.

NORTH CAROLINA.

CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISION.

Article I.

§ 31. Perpetuities and monopolies are contrary to the genius of a free State, and ought not to be allowed.

STATUTES.

LAWS OF 1889, CHAP. 374.

AN ACT to prohibit trusts in the State of North Carolina, and to provide for the punishment of persons connected with them.

The General Assembly of North Carolina do enact:

§ 1. That all combinations and trusts as defined by this act are unlawful, and dangerous to the liberty of the people, and are hereby forbidden to be formed or carried on in this state.

§ 2. That a trust is an arrangement, understanding or agreement, either private or public, entered into by two or more persons or corporations for the purposes of increasing or reducing the price of the shares of stock of any company or corporation, or of any class of products, materials or manufactured articles, beyond the price that would be fixed by the natural demand for or the supply of such shares, products, materials or manufactured articles; and any attempt to carry out such purpose shall be evidence that such arrangement, understanding or agreement exists.

§ 3. That any persons, company or corporation who shall form, or attempt to form, a trust in this state, or the agent or representative of any trust in any state or county, who shall attempt to carry on operations in this state, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and upon conviction may be fined not more than $10,000 or may be imprisoned not more than ten years for each offense.

§ 4. That any person, company or corporation who enter into an arrangement, understanding or agreement not to

mine, manufacture, buy, sell or transport more than a certain specific amount of any goods, products or commodities within a specified time, will have violated section three of this act and will be liable to indictment therefor; and any person, company or corporation who give bond or make a forfeit of any kind not to break such arrangement, understanding or agreement shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and on conviction thereof shall be fined or imprisoned, or both, in the discretion of the court.

§ 5. That any merchant, broker, manufacturer or dealers in raw materials of any kind, or the agent of such persons, who shall sell any particular class of goods, raw materials or manufactured articles for less than actual cost, for the purpose of breaking down competitors, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and upon conviction may be fined or imprisoned, or both, in the discretion of the court: Provided, That nothing contained in this act shall operate or be construed so as to forbid or prevent any person or persons who desire and intend to purchase any article or commodity for his or their own use or consumption, from combining or otherwise lawfully acting so as to protect or help themselves from imposition in the cost or purchase price of such articles or commodities as they or either of them may design or intend to

use or consume.

§ 6. That this act shall be in full force and effect from and after the first day of May of the year one thousand eight hundred and eighty-nine.

Ratified the 11th day of March, A. D. 1889.

LAWS OF 1899, CHAP. 666.

POOLS, TRUSTS AND CONSPIRACIES UNLAWFUL COMBINA

TIONS.

AN ACT providing for the punishment of pools, trusts and conspiracies, and as to evidence and prosecution in such cases.

The General Assembly of North Carolina do enact:

§ 1. Any corporation organized under the laws of this or any other state or country for transacting or conducting any kind of business in this state, or any partnership or individual or other association of persons whatsoever, who shall create, enter into, become a member of or a party to any pool, trust, agreement, combination, confederation or understanding with any other corporation, partnership, individual 252A--13