« 이전계속 »
propositions,- in short, to not only state what the law is, but ascertain, if possible, what it should be. Progress is a procession of facts followed by theories; in the long run the two harmonize, and what the law should be it will be, but, it must be confessed, at the present time the lack of harmony is only too apparent. Combination as an economic factor in the industrial and commercial world is a fact with which courts and legislatures may struggle, and struggle in vain, until they frankly recognize that, like all other conditions, it is a result of evolution to be conserved, regulated and made use of, but not suppressed. Since the large combinations of recent years differ only in degree from the smaller combinations fariliar to the common law, the principles of the common law broadly and intelligently applied are quite sufficient to meet the exigencies of the present situation. The common law itself is a noble development, and as such can more successfully deal with economic conditions, which are also the results of evolution, than laws which are the arbitrary and frequently the thoughtless edicts of man. It is much easier to enact a new law than to apply an old, but the latter will be found virile and effective where the former is either impotent or mischievous.
In a preface it is customary for the author to confess the faults and errors his book contains; but why discount the labor of the critic who discovers all things ? Errors are recognized while virtues are yet a long way off; it would seem more reasonable to hasten the introduction of the latter, leaving the former to shift for themselves. That the errors herein are not more numerous is due in no small degree to Mr. Charles S. Williston of the Chicago bar, who has verified the citations and prepared the table of cases, and to Mr. Fred W. Arthur of the Madison (Wis.) bar, who with Mr. Williston has carefully read the proofs and made many valuable suggestions.
A. J. E.
CONTRACTS IN RESTRAINT OF TRADE
(A) The earlier American cases.
APPENDIX, pp. 1337–1450.
organization of corporations for profit, together with forms.
TABLE OF CASES.
References are to pages.
Abbot v. Am. Hard Rubber Co., 552, | Amory v. Merryweather, 103. 656.
Anchor Electric Co. v. Hawks, 843. Adams v. Barrett, 97.
Anderson v. Dunn, 1215. Adams v. Paige, 243.
Anderson v. Jett, 519,523, 546, 821. Adams v. People, 232.
Anderson v. United States, 915, 943, Addyston Pipe & Steel Co. v. United 979, 982.
States, 908, 911, 915, 925, 931, 992. Andrews v. Brown, 869. Adm'r of Smith v. Adm'r of Wain. Andrews v. Russell, 676. wright, 862.
Angerstein v. Hunt, 1214. Ætna Ins. Co. v. Harvey, 1322. Angier v. Webber, 822. Ætna Ins. Co. et al. v. Com., 1058. Angle v. Railway Co., 338. Ainsworth v. Bentley, 144.
Anheuser-Busch Brew, Ass'n V.
Anthony v. Unangst, 83, 101.
Appeal of McClurg, 845. Alger v. Thacher, 615, 803, 805, 806, Archer v. James, 725. 822.
Archer v. Marsh, 744, 762, 774, 777. Allen v.'Flood, 364, 363, 369, 370, 392, Archer v. Terre Haute & Indianapo 393, 394, 396, 397, 401, 439.
lis R. Co., 1245. Allen v. Merchants' Nat. Bank, 513. Archibald v. Thomas, 852. Allgeyer v. Louisiana, 910, 1156. Ardesco Oil Co. v. North American Allsopp v. Wheatcroft, 751, 764, 765, Oil & Mining Co., 870. 774.
Armstrong v. Toler, 991, 1323. Althen v. Vreeland, 146, 859.
Arnold Bros. v. Kreutzer & Wasen, American Biscuit & Mfg. Co. v. 824. Klotz, 620, 646, 898, 928.
Arnot & Pittston v. Elmira Coal Co., American Preservers' Trust v. Tay- 62, 64, 468, 523, 545, 546, 564, 565, lor Mfg. Co., 583, 586.
586, 938. American Steel & Wire Co. v. Wire Arrowsmith v. Burlington, 676.
Drawers' Union et al., 437, 1158, Arthur et al. v. Oakes et al., 354, 357, 1163, 1176, 1177, 1188, 1207, 1210, 358, 403, 412, 421, 438, 460, 1165, 1219.
1186. American Strawboard Co. v. Helde- | Asher v. Texas, 1002. man Paper Co., 782, 837.
Ashley v. Ryan, 1002. American Strawboard Co. v. Peoria | Ashton v. Dakin, 79. Strawboard Co., 1040.
Aspinwald et al. v. Ohio & Miss. R. Ames v. Kansas, 1226, 1300.
Co., 1343, 1344.
References are to pages.
Association v. Niezerowski, 435.
Babcock v. Thompson, 97.
Bacon v. Mich. Cent. R. Co., 511. Atcheson v. Mallon, 523, 565.
Badische Anilin und Soda Fabrik v. Atchison St. Ry. Co. v. Nave, 1237. Schott & Segner, 766, 769. Atchison, T. & S. F. R. Co. v. Denver Bagg's Case, 475. & N. O. R. Co., 970.
Bagley v. Peddie, 865. Atkyns v. Kinnier, 777.
Bagley v. Smith et al., 866. Atlantic Giant Powder Co. v. Ditt Bailey v. Bensley, 104.
mar Powder Mfg. Co., 1216. Bailey et al. v. Association of Master Attorney-General v. Amos, 1242.
Plumbers of the City of MemAttorney-General v. Bank of Niag- phis, 431, 432, 433, 434, 1128.
Bailey et al. v. City of Philadelphia, Attorney-General v. Brown, 1167.
24. Attorney-General v. Cambridge Gas Bajou's Case, 847. Co., 1293.
Baker v. Hedgcock, 766. Attorney-General v. Chapman, 852. Baker v. Neff, 1238. Attorney-General v. Delaware & B. Baldwin v. Binsmore, 82. B. Ry. Co., 1268.
Ball v. Gilbert, 70. Attorney-General v. Detroit Subur. Balt. etc. Co. v. West. Un. Tel. Co., ban Ry. Co., 1247.
565. Attorney-General v. Heishon, 1167. Bangs v. Hornick, 108. Attorney-General v. Holihan, 1242. Bank v. King, 564. Attorney-General v. Johnston, 1268. Bank v. Schermerhorn, 1216. Attorney-General v. Looker et al., Bank of Auburn v. Aiken, 1290. 1235.
Bank of Augusta v. Earle, 1002, 1343, Attorney-General v. Michigan State 1344. Bank, 1277, 1286.
Bank of Bethel v. Pahquioque Bank, Attorney-General v. Mid. Kent Ry. 1251. Co., 1164.
Bannon v. United States, 234. Attorney-General v. New Jersey R. Barbier v. Connolly, 717, 1137, 1138. Co., 1167.
Barnard v. Backhaus, 75, 93, 95, 113. Attorney-General v. New York & L. Barnett v. Baxter, 83. B. R. Co., 1269.
Barr v. Essex Trades Council, 403, Attorney-General v. Perkins et al., 406, 414, 438, 447, 450, 451, 1176. 1242.
Barrow v. Richard, 838. Attorney-General v. Petersburgh & Barry v. Croskey, 82.
Roanoke R. Co., 1248, 1253, 1254. Barton v. Mulvane, 1051, 1320.
Consumers' Co., 1268, 1293. Baxter v. Connolly, 815.
Bazley's Case, 228. Attorney-General v. Utica Ins. Co., Beadel v. Perry, 1163. 1227.
Beal v. Chase et al., 782,798, 832, 840, Auburn & Cato R. Co. v. Douglas, 491. 868, 957. Aurora Bank v. Oliver, 555.
Bean v. Bean, 243, Austin v. Murray, 710.
Beard et al. v. Dennis, 580, 813, 815, Avery v. Langford, 744, 764, 814, 868. 840, 857.