PENNSYLVANIA.

COMMON-LAW DECISIONS.

The Morris Run Coal Co. v. The Barclay Coal Co.

68 Penn. St., 173. Statement.

January, 1871.

Five Pennsylvania coal corporations, of which plaintiff and defendant are two, controlled bituminous coal. They agreed that sales should be regulated and prices fixed by a committee. If one company should sell more than its share, it should divide the proceeds with the other four. Defendant sold more than its share and plaintiff seeks to compel it to divide the profits.

Opinion.

The contract was in restraint of trade to such an extent that it was against public policy, and hence is void.

Plaintiff can not recover.

Nester et al. v. Continental Brewing Co. et al.

161 Penn., 473.

Statement.

May 14, 1894.

A very large number of brewers in Philadelphia and Camden formed an association which was to control the price at which the members were to sell beer. Plaintiffs and defendants were members of this association which was known as the Enterprise Brewing Company, Limited. Growing out of this transaction is a debt due plaintiffs from the association of about $17,000. An accounting is prayed.

Opinion.

The agreement sought to be enforced creates a combination in restraint of trade tending to destroy competition and to create a monopoly in an article of daily consumption. It is not even contended that the agreement was necessary to protect the partners' interests. The natural tendency of such contracts is to injure public interests and they are, therefore, void.

Relief is denied.

252A- -14

209

RHODE ISLAND.

COMMON-LAW DECISION.

Oakdale Manufacturing Co. et al. v. Sebastian Garst.

18 R. I., 484. Statement.

February 27, 1894.

Three oleomargarine companies formed a corporation, the Oakdale Manufacturing Company, to which each gave all its business, promised not to be in any way connected with any other manufactory of oleomargarine for five years, and received stock in the new company as payment. Defendant, one of the promisers, has now commenced manufacturing oleomargarine, and this action is brought to enjoin him. The defense is that the contract being an unreasonable restraint of trade is void.

Opinion.

If a contract in restraint of trade is reasonable it is valid, otherwise, void. Inasmuch as in this case the Oakdale Manufacturing Company expected to do a large export business it can not be said that an absolute restraint of five years was unreasonable. The contract is valid.

Defendant is enjoined.

210

SOUTH CAROLINA.

CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISION.

ARTICLE IX.

§ 13. The General Assembly shall enact laws to prevent all trusts, combinations, contracts and agreements against the public welfare; and to prevent abuses, unjust discriminations and extortion in all charges of transporting and transmitting companies; and shall pass laws for the supervision and regulation of such companies by commission or otherwise, and shall provide adequate penalties, to the extent, if necessary for that purpose, of forfeiture of their franchises.

[Adopted, December 4, 1895.]

STATUTES.

LAWS OF 1897, NUMBER 265.

AN ACT to prohibit trusts and combinations and to provide penalties.

§ 1. Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the State of South Carolina, That from and after the passage of this act, all arrangements, contracts, agreements, trusts or combinations between two or more persons as individuals, firms or corporations, made with a view to lessen, or which tends to lessen, full and free competition in the importation or sale of articles imported into this State, or in the manufacture or sale of articles of domestic growth or of domestic raw material, and all arrangements, contracts, agreements, trusts or combinations between persons or corporations designed or which tend to advance, reduce or control the price or the cost to the producer or to the consumer of any such product or article, are hereby declared to be against public policy, unlawful and void.

§ 2. Whenever complaint is made upon sufficient affidavit or affidavits showing a prima facie case of violation of the provisions of the first section of this Act by any corporation,

domestic or foreign, it shall be the duty of the AttorneyGeneral to begin an action against such domestic corporation to forfeit its charter, and in case such violation shall be established the court shall adjudge the charter of such corporation to be forfeited, and such corporation shall be dissolved, and its charter shall cease and determine; and in the case of such showing as to a foreign corporation an action shall be begun by the Attorney-General in said court against such corporation to determine the truth of such charge; and in case such charge shall be considered established, the effect of the judgment of the court shall be to deny to such corporation the recognition of its corporate existence in any court of law or equity in this State. But nothing in this section shall be construed to affect any right of action then existing against such corporation.

§ 3. Any violation of the provision of this Act shall be deemed, and is hereby declared to be, destructive of full and free competition and a conspiracy against trade, and any person or persons who may engage in any such conspiracy, or who shall, as principal, manager, director or agent, or in any other capacity, knowingly carry out any of the stipulations, purposes, prices, rates or orders made in furtherance of such conspiracy, shall on conviction be punished by a fine of not less than one hundred dollars or more than five thousand dollars, and by imprisonment in the penitentiary not less than six months or more than ten years, or in the judgment of the court, by either such fine or such imprisonment.

§ 4. That any person or persons or corporation that may be injured or damaged by any such arrangement, contract, agreement, trust or combination described in section one of this Act may sue for and recover, in any court of competent jurisdiction in this State, of any person, persons or corporation operating such trust or combination, the full consideration or sum paid by him or them for any goods, wares, merchandise or articles the sale of which is controlled by such combination or trust.

§ 5. That any and all persons may be compelled to testify in any action or prosecution under this Act: Provided, That such testimony shall not be used in any other action or prosecution against such witness or witnesses and such witness or witnesses shall forever be exempt from any prosecution for the act or acts concerning which he or they testify.

§ 6. Nothing contained in this Act shall be taken or construed to apply to any person or persons acting in the discharge of official duties under the laws of this State.

§ 7. All Acts in conflict with this Act be, and the same are hereby, repealed.

Approved the 25th day of February, A. D. 1897.

LAWS OF 1899, NUMBER 39.

AN ACT to prevent fire insurance companies, associations or partnerships doing business in this State, or the agents of said companies or partnerships, from entering into combination to make or control rates for fire insurance on property in this State, and providing punishment for violation of this act.

§ 1. Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the State of South Carolina, That it shall be unlawful for any fire insurance company, association or partnership doing a fire insurance business in this State, to enter into any compact or combination with other fire insurance companies, associations or partnerships, or to require or allow their agents to enter into any compact or combination with other insurance agents, companies, associations or partnerships, for the purpose of governing or controlling the rates charged for fire insurance on any property in this State: Provided, That nothing herein shall prohibit one or more of such companies from employing a common agent or agents to supervise and advise of defective structures or suggest improvements to lessen fire hazard.

§ 2. That all fire insurance companies, associations or partnerships doing a fire insurance business in this State shall cause to be filed on the first day of March, 1900, and in each year thereafter, with the Comptroller-General of this State, the affidavit of some officer or agent of said company, association or partnership, who resides in this State, setting forth the fact that the company of which he is an officer or agent has not in the twelve months previous to the date of the said affidavit entered into any trust, combination or association for the purpose of preventing competition in insurance rates in this State. The said affidavit shall be made before some officer of this State authorized to administer oaths; and any false statement made in said affidavit shall be deemed perjury, and punished by a fine of not less than one hundred