Missouri prohibits agreements, combinations, etc., in restraint of trade or competition in the importation, transportation, manufacture, purchase, or sale of any product or commodity in the State, or any article or thing bought or sold.1

Missouri and South Carolina prohibit agreements, pools, combinations, etc., to control or limit the trade in any article or thing or to limit competition in such trade by refusing to buy from or sell to any other person, etc., for the reason that such person is not a member of such pool, etc."

Montana prohibits combinations, contracts, etc., "to prevent competition in merchandise or commodities," or by which the parties settle the price of any article of merchandise, commerce, or products so as to preclude unrestricted competition.3

A Nebraska statute in substance prohibits persons, etc., dealing in, handling, or consigning grain, from forming, maintaining, or contributing to any pool, combination, etc., to prevent competition among buyers, sellers, or dealers in grain, or which hinders or prevents the fullest competition in the purchase, sale, or dealing in grain by persons, etc., not members of, or doing business through, such combinations, or to prevent competition by requiring members not to deal with shippers or dealers in grain not members of such pool, combination, etc.1

New York prohibits corporations combining with any other corporation or person for the prevention of competition in any necessary of life. This State also prohibits agreements, combinations, etc., whereby competition in the State in the supply or price of any article or commodity of common use is or may be restrained or prevented."

North Carolina in substance prohibits any person, corporation, etc., engaged in buying or selling in the State from having any agreement or understanding with any other person, etc., not to buy or sell within certain territorial limits within the State, with the intention of preventing competition in selling or to fix prices or prevent competition in buying within these limits. Agents are permitted to represent more than one principal, but two or more persons are not author

1 Missouri, R. S., chap. 98, sec. 10298, as amended in 1913.

* Idem, sec. 10300, as amended in 1913; South Carolina, Laws 1902, No. 574, sec. 5.

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

4 Nebraska, Laws 1897, chap. 80, sec. 1.

5 New York, S. C. L., sec. 14.

New York, Cons. Laws, Gen. Business Law, sec. 340.

Brooklyn Distilling Co. v. Standard Distilling & Distributing Co., 120 N. Y. App. Div., 237 (1907).— Plaintiff leased distillery to defendant company, and in defense of a suit to recover rent it was alleged that the lease was illegal and void, as it was made in violation of Laws 1897, chapter 383 (now Gen. Business Laws, sec. 340). From a judgment for plaintiff defendant appealed. Held, that the corporation could not escape liability for rent when there was no evidence that the landlord was a party to the combination. The statute does not prevent one from selling or leasing property, nor does it prevent one from buying or leasing property to prevent competition. It is designed to prevent the owners or controllers of property entering into a combination to regulate production and maintain prices for their mutual benefit according to their respective interests.

ized to employ a common agent for the purpose of suppressing competition or lowering prices.1

Texas also prohibits corporations from acquiring the shares, bonds, franchises, or other rights or properties of other corporations for the purpose of preventing or lessening, or where the effect of such acquisition tends to affect or lessen, competition."

Wisconsin prohibits corporations from entering into any combination, agreement, etc., intended to restrain or prevent competition in the supply or price of any article or commodity in general use in the State or constituting a subject of trade or commerce therein.3

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 "the restriction or regulation of competition between the members of the association or any of them in any matter or thing connected with the business conducted by such members or authorized to be done by them under their respective charters."

Porto Rico prohibits "every contract, combination in the form of trust or otherwise, or conspiracy, in restraint of trade, commerce, business transactions, and lawful and free competition in a town, or among the several towns of Porto Rico." 5

Section 5. Pooling.

DEFINITIONS.-Pools are prohibited in many States, and are defined by the laws of one, namely, North Dakota, where the term is a synonym of "trust."

CONSTITUTIONAL PROHIBITIONS.-The constitution of Kentucky (sec. 198) requires the legislature to enact laws to prevent pools and other organizations "from combining to depreciate below its real value any article, or to enhance the cost of any article above its real value."7

1 North Carolina, Laws 1913, chap. 41, sec. 5.

* Texas, Laws 1903, Chap. XCIV, sec. 2.

Wisconsin, Laws 1907, p. 432, sec. 1791j.

4 Mississippi, Laws 1914, chap. 124, sec. 65.

Revised Statutes and Codes of Porto Rico, 1911, sec. 2373.

6 North Dakota, Laws 1907, chap. 259, sec. 2.

7 In 1890 Kentucky passed an antitrust statute (act of May 20, 1890, Carroll's Kentucky Stats., secs. 3915 to 3921) prohibiting agreements or combinations for the purpose of controlling the price or output of any article of commerce. A new State constitution, adopted in 1891, provided that the general assembly should enact such laws as necessary to prevent combinations for the purpose of depreciating below or enhancing the cost of any article above its real value (Const., sec. 198). In Commonwealth v. Grinstead (108 Kentucky, 59, 76) it was held that the constitutional provision did not repeal the act of 1890, as they were not inconsistent; on the contrary, the court was of the opinion that, in the absence of any other law, the legislature evidently considered the act of 1890 the law best calculated to enforce this provision of the constitution. In 1906 a statute authorized any number of persons to combine or pool crops of wheat, tobacco, corn, oats, hay, or other farm products raised by them for the purpose of obtaining a higher price than they could obtain by selling them separately (Laws, 1906, ch. 117, p. 429). In 1908 a statute reaffirmed the legality of such combinations, provided that the breach of such combination agreements might be re

The constitution of Louisiana (art. 190, adopted Nov. 22, 1913) provides that it shall be unlawful for persons or corporations, or their legal representatives, "to unite or pool their interests for the purpose of forcing up or down the price of any agricultural product or article of necessity, for speculative purposes."

STATUTORY PROHIBITIONS.-Alabama prohibits any person or corporation from entering into any pool to regulate or fix the price of any article or commodity to be sold or produced within the State, or to fix or limit the quantity of any article or commodity to be produced, manufactured, mined, or sold in the State.1

Nine other States (Arkansas, Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, North Dakota, South Carolina, and Utah) have substantially similar laws.2

strained by injunction, and made unlawful the sale by or purchase from an owner contrary to his agreement (Laws, 1908, ch. 8, p. 38).

In cases arising after the passage of the act of 1906 the State courts held that the act of 1890, the constitution of 1891, and the act of 1906 must be taken together, and by interaction and to avoid questions of constitutionality, were construed to make any combination for the purpose of controlling prices lawful unless for the purpose or with the effect of fixing a price that was greater or less than the real value of the article [Owen County Burley Tobacco Society v. Brumback, 128 Kentucky, 137 (1908); Commonwealth v. International Harvester Co. of America, 131 Ky., 551 (1909); Commonwealth v. Hodges, 137, Ky., 233 (1910); International Harvester Co. of America v. Commonwealth, 137 Ky., 668 (1910); Collins v. Commonwealth, 141 Ky., 564 (1911); International Harvester Co. of America v. Commonwealth, 144 Ky., 403 (1911); American Seeding Machine Co. v. Commonwealth, 152 Ky., 589 (1913)]. The State courts held the act of 1906 not to be in violation of section 3 of the Bill of Rights or of the fourteenth amendment to the Federal Constitution, as being class legislation, inasmuch as it did not expressly forbid persons other than producers of farm products from also combining for the purpose of obtaining higher prices [Owen County Burley Tobacco Society v. Brumback, 128 Ky., 137 (1908); Commonwealth v. International Harvester Co. of America, 131 Ky., 551 (1909)]. The State courts, in order to meet the contention that the term "real value" was not definite, declared that obviously the real value of any commodity was "its market value under fair competition and under normal market conditions" [Commonwealth v. International Harvester Co. of America, 131 Ky., 551 (1909); Commonwealth v. Hodges, 137 Ky., 233 (1910); International Harvester Co. of America v. Commonwealth, 137 Ky., 668 (1910); International Harvester Co. of America v. Commonwealth, 147 Ky., 564 (1912)].

Subsequently, however, the Supreme Court of the United States, in International Harvester Co. of America v. Commonwealth of Kentucky, 234 U. S., 216 (1914), held the antitrust provisions of the constitution and laws of Kentucky, as construed together by the highest court of the State, to be unconstitutional under the fourteenth amendment to the Federal Constitution, declaring that the "elements necessary to determine the imaginary ideal," "real value" as used in the statute, "are uncertain both in nature and degree of effect to the acutest commercial mind." In Collins v. Commonwealth of Kentucky, 234 U. S., 634 (1914), (see also Malone v. Commonwealth of Kentucky, 234 U.S., 639 (1914) the court said "that the statute in its reference to 'real value' prescribed no standard of conduct that it was possible to know; that it violated the fundamental principles of justice embraced in the conception of due process of law in compelling men on peril of indictment to guess what their goods would have brought under other conditions not ascertainable." These decisions render null and void Laws 1906, ch. 117, and apparently also section 198 of the State constitution, but perhaps do not affect the validity of Ky. Stats., secs. 3915–3921.

1 Alabama, Stats., sec. 7579.

2 Arkansas, Laws 1905, Act 1, as amended 1913, Act 161; Illinois, Laws 1891, p. 206, as amended in 1893 and 1907; Iowa, Stats., sec. 5060; Minnesota, Stats., sec. 8973; Mississippi, Code 1906, sec. 5002, as amended by Laws 1908, chap. 119, sec. 1; Missouri, R. S., chap. 98, as amended in 1913, sec. 10299; North Dakota, Laws 1907, chap. 259, sec. 1; South Carolina, Laws 1902, No. 574, sec. 1; Utah, Stats., sec. 1753. Chicago, Wilmington & Vermilion Coal Co. et al. v. People, 214 Ill., 421 (1905).-The soft-coal operators of northern Illinois formed an association, one of the objects of which was to regulate and fix the price at which coal should be sold by its members. In a criminal action in the Cook County (Ill.) courts this was held a violation of section 46 of the Criminal Code and the Antitrust Act of 1891, and conspiracy under the common law. The decision was affirmed in both the appellate and supreme courts of the State.

State v. Minneapolis Milk Co., 144 N. W., 417 ( Minn., 1913).—Minneapolis milk dealers who controlled a large percentage of the trade of the city formed a milk dealers' association and agreed to raise prices. It was charged that the agreement was a violation of section 5168, revised laws, 1905. The Minneapolis Milk Co., a corporation, and another defendant, one Ruhnke, demanded a separate trial. Both were convicted and fined. On appeal the judgment was sustained as to Ruhnke but modified as to the corporation by remitting the fine, on the ground that the statute provides specifically for forfeiture of the charter of a corporation convicted under the act and that it was not intended that both fine and forfeiture should be visited on a corporation.

Minnesota prohibits pools in restraint of trade or which regulate the price of any article "of trade, manufacture or use, bought and sold within the State," and further, prohibits pools, etc., which "prevent or limit competition" in the purchase and sale thereof.

The laws of Arkansas, Mississippi, Missouri, and South Carolina vary from that of Alabama in that they prohibit the regulation or the maintenance of the price of any article of manufacture, mechanism, merchandise, commodity, convenience, repair, any product of mining or any article or thing whatsoever, and apply also to the regulation of property insurance premiums.

The law of North Dakota differs from the Alabama statute principally in that it also prohibits fixing or limiting the amount or quantity of any article, commodity, etc., to be manufactured, mined, produced, "exchanged," or sold in the State.

Arizona prohibits combinations to pool any interests in connection with the manufacture, sale, or transportation of any article or commodity, that its price may in any way be affected.1

Nine other States (California, Kansas, Louisiana, Michigan, Nebraska, Ohio, Mississippi, North Dakota, and Texas) have substantially similar laws.2

The California, Louisiana, Michigan, North Dakota, and Ohio laws omit the word "manufacture."

In Nebraska the word "manufacture" is omitted and "production" substituted.

Mississippi extends the prohibition to interests in connection with the "importation, production or price" of a commodity.

In Texas the word "manufacture" is omitted, but the law extends the prohibitions to the pooling of interests in connection with the "purchase" of any article or commodity or the charge for insurance or for the preparation of any product for market, or transportation.

While the above are the commonest types of State laws against pooling, other forms have been adopted in various States, in some cases, in addition to one of the provisions above noted.

Iowa prohibits any person, corporation, etc., operating any business of buying, selling, handling, consigning, or transporting any commodity or article of commerce, from forming, entering, maintaining, or contributing to any pool for the prevention of full and free competition among buyers, sellers, or dealers in any commodity or any article of commerce.3

Missouri and South Carolina prohibit persons, corporations, etc., engaged in buying or selling any article or thing, from entering into

1 Arizona, Laws 1912, chap. 73, sec. 1.

2 California, Laws 1907, chap. 530, sec. 1; Kansas; Laws 1897, chap. 265, sec. 1, G. S., sec. 5142; Louisiana, Laws 1892, Act 90, sec. 1; Michigan, P. A. 1899, No. 255, sec. 1; Nebraska, R. S. (1913), sec. 4017; Ohio, G. C., sec. 6391; Mississippi, Code 1906, sec. 5002, as amended by Laws 1908, chap. 119, sec. 1; North Dakota, Laws 1907, chap. 259, sec. 2; Texas, G. L. 1903, Chap. XCIV, sec. 1.

3 Iowa, Laws 1909, chap. 225, sec. 1.

any pool, etc., to control or limit the trade in any such article or to limit competition in such trade by refusing to buy from or sell to any other person or corporation such article or thing for the reason that such person or corporation is not a member of the pool.1

New Jersey prohibits agreements, and understandings without express agreement, by which the parties preclude free and unrestricted competition among themselves, or any purchaser or consumer in the sale or transportation of any article or commodity either by pooling or in any other manner by which the price might be affected.2

The following statutes relate only to pooling in certain lines of business or for special purposes:

Georgia prohibits pools to lessen competition in the business of insurance transacted in that State.3

Kansas and Nebraska prohibit combinations of grain dealers or others "for the pooling of prices of different and competing dealers and buyers, or to divide between them the aggregate or net proceeds of the earnings of such dealers and buyers, or any portion thereof."4 Nebraska has also a substantially similar statute relating to combinations of dealers and sellers of coal or lumber.5

Another section of the Nebraska statutes in substance prohibits persons, etc., dealing in, handling, or consigning grain, from forming, maintaining, or contributing to, any pool for the prevention of competition among buyers, sellers, or dealers in grain, or which tends to prevent the fullest competition in the purchase, sale, or dealing in grain by persons, etc., not doing business through such pool, or the prevention of competition by requiring members not to deal with nonmembers, or which requires its members to refuse to sell, purchase, or consign grain to any person, etc., who purchases or receives grain from nonmembers, or which has for one of its objects the prevention of any person, etc., not shipping grain through elevators, whether operated by members or not, from finding purchasers, by boycotting, or threatening to boycott, such purchasers."

Montana forbids warehousemen to enter into any contract, agreement, combination, or understanding with any other warehousemen at any railway station whereby the amount of grain to be received or handled by the warehouses at such station shall be equalized or pooled between said warehouses, or whereby the profits or earnings shall be divided or pooled or apportioned in any manner.?

1 Missouri, R. S., chap. 98, sec. 10300, as amended in 1913; South Carolina, Laws 1902, No. 574, sec. 5.

2 New Jersey, Laws 1913, chap. 13, sec. 1.

3 Georgia, Code, sec. 2466.

4 Kansas, Laws 1887, chap. 175, sec. 1; G. S., sec. 5182; Nebraska, Comp. Stats., sec. 7978.

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

Nebraska, Laws 1897, chap. 80, sec. 1.

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