court will therefore be guided in its action by three dominant influences, viz.: (1) The duty of giving complete and efficacious effect to the prohibitions of the statute; (2) the accomplishing of this result with as little injury as possible to the interest of the general public; and (3) a proper regard for the interests of private property acquired by persons without knowledge of or participation in the violation of the law. The United States is duly authorized to maintain a bill for the dissolution of an unlawful combination in violation of the act. In applying this general relief, each case must be dealt with according to its own facts, and the court may make any order necessary to bring about the dissolution or suppression of the illegal combination that restrains interstate commerce. In a proper case, the court may issue a permanent injunction as an incident of the dissolution proceeding, restraining the combination as a universality, and all the individuals and corporations which form a part of or co-operate in it in any manner or form from continuing to engage in interstate commerce until the illegal situation be cured. Or it may direct the appointment of a receiver to take charge of the assets and property of the combination in all its ramifications, for the purpose of preventing a continued violation of the law. Ordinarily, however, the court will not, pending the dissolution of the combination according to its decree, direct the immediate application of either of these remedies where so doing might inflict serious injury on the public by stopping the supply or enhancing the price of a staple commodity controlled by the combination, or where the extensive power which would result from at once resorting to a receivership might not only do grievous injury to the public, but also cause widespread and perhaps irreparable loss to many innocent people.

66. Holding Companies and Other Corporate Combinations.-In the case of a combination formed through the agency of a holding corporation to which has been transferred the stocks of subsidiary corporations in exchange for its own stock, dissolution may, in a proper case, be accomplished by directing a ratable distribution to the share

32 S. Ct. 507, 56 U. S. (L. ed.) 810; United States v. Union Pac. R. Co., 226 U. S. 61, 33 S. Ct. 53, 57 U. S. (L. ed.) 124; United States v. Union Pac. R. Co., 226 U. S. 470, 33 S. Ct. 162, 57 U. S. (L. ed.) 306.

4. United States v. American Tobacco Co., 221 U. S. 106, 31 S. Ct. 632, 55 U. S. (L. ed.) 663.

5. United States v. Trans-Missouri Freight Ass'n, 166 U. S. 290, 17 S. Ct. 540, 41 U. S. (L. ed.) 1007.

6. United States v. Union Pac. R. Co., 226 U. S. 61, 470, 33 S. Ct. 53, 162, 57 U. S. (L. ed.) 124, 306.

7. Northern Securities Co. v. United States, 193 U. S. 197, 24 S. Ct. 436, 48 U. S. (L. ed.) 679. As to the allowance of time to work out a scheme of dissolution, see infra, par. 68.

8. Standard Oil Co. v. United States. 221 U. S. 1, 31 S. Ct. 502, 55 U. S. (L. ed.) 619, Ann. Cas. 1912D 734, 34 L.R.A.(N.S.) 834; United States v. American Tobacco Co., 221 U. S. 106, 31 S. Ct. 632, 55 U. S. (L. ed.) 663; United States v. Union Pac. R. Co., 226 U. S. 61. 470, 33 S. Ct. 53, 162, 57 U. S. (L. ed.) 124, 306.

holders therein of the shares to which they are equitably entitled in the stocks of the subsidiary corporations that are parties to the combination, upon surrender of their stock in the holding company, provided this effectually puts an end to the combination. To make the decree effective, the court may also enjoin the holding company from acquiring any further stock in its subsidiaries, or from voting its stock therein, or in any other form or manner exercising any ownership or exerting any power, directly or indirectly, by virtue of its apparent title to the stocks of the subsidiary corporations, and may prohibit those subsidiary corporations from paying any dividends to the holding corporation or doing any act which would recognize further power in that company, except to the extent that it was necessary to enable that company to transfer the stock.10 Such decree enjoining the holding company from exercising the power acquired by it by virtue of its acquisition of such stock does not amount to an invasion by the federal government of the reserved rights of the states creating the several corporations, nor does it infringe the constitutional guaranty of liberty of contract.11 Where one corporation has acquired a dominating stock interest in another competing corporation, thus effecting a combination in violation of the antitrust act,12 any plan for the disposition of the stock of the controlled company must be such as effectively to dissolve the unlawful combination, and must be subject to the approval and decree of the district court. In relieving against the combination, the court may, by its decree, provide against the right to vote such stock while in the ownership or control of the dominant company, or any corporation owned by it, or while held for it by any corporation or person, and forbid any transfer or disposition thereof in such wise as to continue. its control, and should enjoin the payment of dividends on the stock while so held, except to a receiver appointed by the court to collect and hold such dividends until disposed of by its decree.18

9. Northern Securities Co. v. United States, 193 U. S. 197, 24 S. Ct. 436, 48 U. S. (L. ed.) 679; Harriman v. Northern Securities Co., 197 U. S. 244, 25 S. Ct. 493, 49 U. S. (L. ed.) 739; Standard Oil Co. v. United States, 221 U. S. 1, 31 S. Ct. 502, 55 U. S. (L. ed.) 619, Ann. Cas. 1912D 734, 34 L.R.A. (N.S.) 834; United States v. American Tobacco Co., 221 U. S. 106, 31 S. Ct. 632, 55 U. S. (L. ed.) 663; United States v. Union Pac. R. Co., 226 U. S. 61, 470, 33 S. Ct. 53, 162, 57 U. S. (L. ed.) 124, 306. And see infra, par. 130.

10. Northern Securities Co. v. United States, 193 U. S. 197, 24 S. Ct.

436, 48 U. S. (L. ed.) 679; Harriman v. Northern Securities Co., 197 U. S. 244, 25 S. Ct. 493, 49 U. S. (L. ed.) 739; Standard Oil Co. v. United States, 221 U. S. 1, 31 S. Ct. 502, 55 U. S. (L. ed.) 619, Ann. Cas. 1912D 734, 34 L.R.A. (N.S.) 834; United States v. American Tobacco Co., 221 U. S. 106, 31 S. Ct. 632, 55 U. S. (L. ed.) 663.

11. Northern Securities Co. v. United States, 193 U. S. 197, 24 S. Ct. 436, 48 U. S. (L. ed.) 679.

12. See supra, par. 47.

13. United States v. Union Pac. R. Co., 226 U. S. 61, 470, 33 S. Ct. 53, 162, 57 U. S. (L. ed.) 124, 306.

67. Appeal; Harmless Error.-The voluntary dissolution of a combination after a decree dismissing a suit in equity seeking such dissolution and asking that the defendants be enjoined from continuing in a like combination does not prevent the supreme court of the United States from taking cognizance of an appeal and deciding the case on its merits, where the judgment of that court is sought upon the legality of their agreement and the defendants claim it to be legal and necessary, and on dissolving such association entered into and acted upon another similar agreement. The requisite amount is involved on an appeal where the bill seeks a dissolution of an association of common carriers for the regulation of rates, when those rates exceed the statutory amount per day, and the carriers claim that such an association or something similar thereto is necessary to the prosperity, if not the life, of each company.14 The overruling of exceptions taken on the ground of impertinence to so much of a bill filed by the United States to restrain violations of the Sherman act as counted upon facts occurring prior to its enactment cannot be regarded as prejudicial error, where the court gave no weight to the testimony adduced under the averments complained of, except in so far as it tended to throw light upon the acts done after the passage of the statute, the results of which, it was charged, were being participated in and enjoyed by the alleged combination at the time of the filing of the bill.15

68. Remanding for Dissolution.-In recent antitrust cases under the Sherman act, the supreme court of the United States has adopted the practice of laying down the principles controlling the disposition of the case and the relief to be afforded, and then remanding the cause to the lower court with directions to determine upon and carry out a plan or method of effectually dissolving the combination. In such cases, leave is given the parties within a period specified to submit to the lower court plans for this purpose. The mandate usually contains a further direction that if the parties shall fail to come to an agreement which is in substantial accord with the supreme court's opinion and decree, the court below shall, after hearing, itself dissolve the combination.16 The parties to the unlawful combination,

14. United States v. Trans-Missouri Freight Ass'n, 166 U. S. 290, 17 S. Ct. 540, 41 U. S. (L. ed.) 1007.

15. Standard Oil Co. V. United States, 221 U. S. 1, 31 S. Ct. 502, 55 U. S. (L. ed.) 619, Ann. Cas. 1912D 734, 34 L.R.A. (N.S.) 834.

16. Standard Oil Co. v. United States, 221 U. S. 1, 31 S. Ct. 502, 55 U. S. (L. ed.) 619, Ann. Cas. 1912D 374, 34 L.R.A. 834; United States v. American Tobacco Co., 221 U. S. 106,

31 S. Ct. 632, 55 U. S. (L. ed.) 663; United States v. St. Louis Terminal R. Ass'n, 224 U. S. 383, 32 S. Ct. 507, 56 U. S. (L. ed.) 741, 236 U. S. 194, 35 S. Ct. 408, 59 U. S. (L. ed.) 535; United States v. Union Pac. R. Co., 226 U. S. 61, 470, 33 S. Ct. 53, 162, 57 U. S. (L. ed.) 124, 306; Evens, etc., Fire Brick Co. v. United States, 236 U. S. 210, 35 S. Ct. 415, 59 U. S. (L. ed.) 542.

and not the parties to the suit, are meant by the word "parties" in a mandate of this kind.17 But the federal district court cannot permit persons not parties to the record to intervene after a final decree attempting to carry out the mandate has been entered and an appeal from such decree has been taken.18 Persons not parties to the suit are entitled to be heard originally in the federal supreme court concerning the settlement, so far as it may operate prejudicially to their rights, of a decree below entered pursuant to a mandate from the supreme court, directing the entry of a decree for the reorganization of a combination, 19

V. STATE ANTITRUST LAWS

Scope and Validity

69. In General.-The federal antitrust act necessarily applied only to contracts, combinations, and conspiracies in restraint of interstate and international trade and commerce, and soon after its passage the states began to enact similar statutes for the purpose of reaching agreements and combinations which were beyond the reach of the federal power. Antitrust statutes of the same general character, although differing in scope and detail, are now in force in many states of the Union,20 and a number of the states have constitutional inhibitions against trusts and monopolies, coupled with directions to the legislature to pass appropriate suppressive legislation, and forbidding the legislative grant to any corporation of the power to enter into such combinations. Some of the earlier statutes made it a mis

17. United States v. St. Louis Terminal R. Ass'n, 236 U. S. 194, 35 S. Ct. 408, 59 U. S. (L. ed.) 535.

18. Evens, etc., Fire Brick Co. v. United States, 236 U. S. 210, 35 S. Ct. 415, 59 U. S. (L. ed.) 542.

19. United States v. St. Louis Terminal R. Ass'n, 236 U. S. 194, 35 S. Ct. 408, 59 U. S. (L. ed.) 535.

20. State v. Duluth Board of Trade, 107 Minn. 506, 121 N. W. 395, 23 L.R.A. (N.S.) 1260 and note. See supra, par. 26 et seq., as to the application of the Sherman act to interstate commerce.

1. International Harvester Co. v. Kentucky, 234 U. S. 216, 34 S. Ct. 853, 58 U. S. (L. ed.) 1284; Collins v. Kentucky, 234 U. S. 634, 34 S. Ct. 924, 58 U. S. (L. ed.) 1510; Brown v. Jacobs' Pharmacy Co., 115 Ga. 429, 41 S. E. 553, 90 A. S. R. 126, 57

L.R.A. 547; Stites v. Norton, 125 Ky. 672, 101 S. W. 1189, 13 L.R.A. (N.S.) 474; Com. v. International Harvester Co., 131 Ky. 551, 115 S. W. 703, 133 A. S. R. 256; State v. Duluth Board of Trade, 107 Minn. 506, 121 N. W. 395, 23 L.R.A. (N.S.) 1260; Yazoo, etc., R. Co. v. Searles, 85 Miss. 520, 37 So. 939, 68 L.R.A. 715; State v. Cudahy Packing Co., 33 Mont. 179, 82 Pac. 833, 114 A. S. R. 804, 8 Ann. Cas. 717; Walter A. Wood Mowing, etc., Co. v. Greenwood Hardware Co., 75 S. C. 378, 55 S. E. 973, 9 Ann. Cas. 902, 9 L.R.A. (N.S.) 501; State v. Central Lumber Co., 24 S. D. 136, 123 N. W. 504, 42 L.R.A. (N.S.) 804 and note; Wood v. Seattle, 23 Wash. 1, 62 Pac. 135, 52 L.R.A. 369.

Note: 64 L.R.A. 689.

And see supra, par. 5 et seq.

A

demeanor for two or more persons to conspire "to commit any act injurious to trade or commerce." 2 Modern antitrust legislation is, however, much more comprehensive and elaborate. Particular acts vary in detail, but they are alike in general purpose, and usually prohibit in explicit terms all contracts, combinations and arrangements in the form of trusts, pools, or otherwise, among individuals, partnerships and corporations, which operate to establish or maintain a monopoly in the state in the manufacture, production or sale of any commodity of general use therein, or which are in restraint of trade within the state. Statutes of the same general character have

2. Stewart v. Stearns, etc., Lumber Builders' Ass'n, 169 Fed. 259, 94 C. Co., 56 Fla. 570, 48 So. 19, 24 L.R.A. C. A. 535, 26 L.R.A.(N.S.) 148; State (N.S.) 649; Clark v. Needham, 125 v. Frank, 114 Ark. 47, 169 S. W. 333, Mich. 84, 83 N. W. 1027, 84 A. S. R. Ann. Cas. 1916D 983, 52 L.R.A. (N.S.) 559; People v. North River Sugar Re- 1149; Getz v. Federal Salt Co., 147 fining Co., 54 Hun 354, 355, 3 N. Y. Cal. 115, 81 Pac. 416, 109 A. S. R. 114; S. 401, 7 N. Y. S. 406, 2 L.R.A. 33, Ford v. Chicago Milk Shippers' Ass'n, 5 L.R.A. 386, affirmed 121 N. Y. 582, 155 Ill. 166, 39 N. E. 651, 27 L.R.A. 24 N. E. 834, 18 A. S. R. 843, 9 298; Harding v. American Glucose Co., L.R.A. 33; Leonard v. Poole, 114 N. 182 Ill. 551; 55 N. E. 577, 74 A. S. R. Y. 371, 21 N. E. 707, 11 A. S. R. 667, 189, 64 L.R.A. 738; Southern Fire 4 L.R.A. 728; People v. Sheldon, 139 Brick, etc., Co. v. Garden City Sand N. Y. 251, 34 N. E. 785, 36 A. S. R. Co., 223 Ill. 616, 79 N. E. 313, 7 Ann. 690, 23 L.R.A. 221; Morris Run Coal Cas. 50, 9 L.R.A.(N.S.) 446 and note; Co. v. Barclay Coal Co., 68 Pa. St. Iver v. Byram Foundry Co., 37 Ind. 173, 8 Am. Rep. 159. App. 452, 77 N. E. 302, 117 A. S. R. 327; Reeves V. Decorah Farmers' Cooperative Soc., 160 Ia. 194, 140 N. W. 844, 44 L.R.A. (N.S.) 1104; State v. Smiley, 65 Kan. 240, 60 Pac. 199, 7 L.R.A. 903; State v. Wilson, 73 Kan. 343, 84 Pac. 737, 117 A. S. R. 479; Brewster v. Miller, 101 Ky. 368, 41 S. W. 301, 38 L.R.A. 505; Aetna Ins. Co. v. Com., 106 Ky. 864, 51 S. W. 624, 45 L.R.A. 355; Com. v. International Harvester Co., 131 Ky. 551, 115 S. W. 703, 3 A. S. R. 256; Merchants' Ice, etc., Co. v. Rohrman, 138 Ky. 530, 128 S. W. 599, 137 A. S. R. 390, 30 L.R.A. (N.S.) 973; Hunt v. Riverside Co-Operative Club, 140 Mich. 538, 104 N. W. 40, 112 A. S. R. 420; Ertz v. Produce Exch. Co., 82 Minn. 173, 84 N. W. 743, 83 A. S. R. 419, 51 L.R.A. 825; State v. Duluth Board of Trade, 107 Minn. 506, 121 N. W. 395, 23 L.R.A.(N.S.) 1260 and note; State v. Creamery Package Mfg. Co., 110 Minn. 415, 126 N. W. 126, 623, 136 A. S. R. 514; State v. Minneapolis Milk Co., 124

3. Connolly v. Union Sewer Pipe .Co., 184 U. S. 540, 22 S. Ct. 431, 46 U. S. (L. ed.) 679; Minnesota v. Northern Securities Co., 194 U. S. 48, 24 S. Ct. 598, 48 U. S. (L. ed.) 870; Smiley v. Kansas, 196 U. S. 447, 25 S. Ct. 289, 49 U. S. (L. ed:) 546; National Cotton Oil Co. v. Texas, 197 U. S. 115, 25 S. Ct. 379, 49 U. S. (L. ed.) 689; Waters-Pierce Oil Co. v. Texas, 212 U. S. 86, 29 S. Ct. 220, 53 U. S. (L. ed.) 417; Hammond Packing Co. v. Arkansas, 212 U. S. 322, 29 S. Ct. 370, 53 U. S. (L. ed.) 530; Grenada Lumber Co. v. Mississippi, 217 U. S. 433, 30 S. Ct. 535, 54 U. S. (L. ed.) 826; International Harvester Co. of America v. Missouri, 234 U. S. 199, 34 S. Ct. 859, 58 U. S. (L. ed.) 1276; International Harvester Co. of America v. Kentucky, 234 U. S. 216, 34 S. Ct. 853, 58 U. S. (L. ed.) 1284; Chicago Wall Paper Mills v. General Paper Co., 147 Fed. 491, 78 C. C. A. 607, 8 Ann. Cas. 889; National Fireproofing Co. v. Mason