mined, bought or sold, shall be deemed guilty of the crime of conspiracy." 18 It shall not be lawful for any corporation to issue, or to own, have or sell any trust certificates or stocks, or for any corporation's agent, officer or employee, agent or director, or any corporation to enter into, either verbally or in writing, any combinations, contract, agreement or understanding with any person or persons, corporation or corporations, or with any director, agent or officer thereof, the purpose or effect of which combination, contract, agreement or understanding would 18 Stat. (1903), § 3915. For similar provisions, see under Ala. (§ 204); Ark. (§ 205); Ill. (§ 209); Iowa (§ 211); Minn. (§ 218); Miss. (§ 219); Mo. (§ 220); N. D. (§ 226); S. C. (§ 229); Utah (§ 233). "It shall be the duty of the General Assembly, from time to time, as necessity may require, to enact such laws as may be necessary to prevent all trusts, pools, combinations or other organizations from combining to depreciate below its real value, any article, or to enhance the cost of any article above its real value." Const., art. 198. As to effect thereof, see Commonwealth v. International Harvester Co., infra. In Commonwealth Bavarian Brewing Co., supra, § 3915 was held not in conflict with art. 198. In Commonwealth V. Grinstead, 108 Ky. 59; 55 S. W. 720 (1900), the provisions of § 3915 et seq. (enacted in 1890), were held not repealed by art. (adopted in 1891), or by § 1 of the schedule of the Constitution; also held not repealed because of omission from act of 1893 revising criminal laws; also held not objectionable on the ground of uncertainty. To like effect, see Commonwealth v. International Harvester Co., 115 S. W. 703 (Ct. App. Ky., 1909). In a subsequent deci V. 198 sion in Commonwealth v. Grinstead, in 111 Ky. 203; 63 S. W. 427; 56 L. R. A. 709 (1901), § 3915 was held not violated by agreements by those purchasing from manufacturers not to sell for less than a fixed price. In International Harvester Co. v. Commonwealth, 99 S. W. 637 (Ct. App. Ky., 1907), it was applied in sustaining the conviction. of a corporation for entering into a combination to fix the price of manufactured articles; i. e., harvesting machines. The agreement in question, though entered into outside, was executed within the State. In Brewster v. Miller, 101 Ky. 368; 41 S. W. 301; 38 L. R. A. 505 (1897), where no action was held to lie against the members of a combination for refusal to sell (see §§ 21, 164), it was regarded as unnecessary to determine whether such combination was within the prohi bition of § 3915. See also as to application of § 3915, Owen County Burley Tobacco Soc. v. Brumback, infra. In Commonwealth v. International Harvester Co., supra, it was sustained against the objection that the act of 1906, infra, produced a discrimination in favor of farmers. See also American Tobacco Co. v. Commonwealth, 115 S. W. 754 (Ct. App. Ky., 1909). be to place the management, control or any part of the business of such combination or association, or the manufactured product thereof, in the hands or under the control, in whole or in part, of any trustee or trustees, or agents, or any person whatever, with the intent, or to have the effect to limit, fix, establish or change the price of the production or sale of any article of property or of commerce, or to prevent, restrict or in any way diminish the manufacture or output of any such article or property." 99 19 § 214. Louisiana.20 19 § 3916. For similar provisions, see under Ala. (§ 204); Ill. (§ 209); Iowa (§ 211); Mich. (§ 217); Mo. (§ 220); Ohio (§ 227); Utah (§ 233). See also under Me. (§ 215). By way of penalty for a violation of the act, a fine of not less than $500 or more than $5,000 is prescribed and in certain cases imprisonment for not less than 6 or more than 12 months, or both such fine and imprisonment. § 3917. An indictment following the language, of the statute was held sufficient in Commonwealth v. Grinstead, supra. § 3918 is to substantially the same effect as §§ 5, 6 of the Ill. act of 1891 (see § 209). By § 3919 provision is made for the forfeiture of the charter of a domestic corporation violating the act. For prohibition of pooling contracts between carriers, see Const., art. 201; against restriction upon competition in fire insurance business, L. 1902, c. 183; L. 1900, c. 110. L. 1906, c. 117, amended by L. 1908, c. 8, relates to combining or pooling crops of wheat, tobacco and other products. See as to such act, Owen County Burley Tobacco Soc. v. Brumback, 107 S. W. 710 (Ct. App. Ky., 1908), where it was held in violation of neither the constitutional prohibition of "grant of exclusive separate public emoluments or privileges" nor of 14th amendment, nor of Ky. Const., art. 198. To like effect, Commonwealth v. International Harvester Co., 115 S. W. 703 (Ct. App. Ky., 1909). See also, as to such act, International Harvester Co. v. Commonwealth, 99 S. W. 637 (Ct. App. Ky., 1907). 20 L. 1892, c. 90; R. S. (Wolff's Ed., 1904), p. 1804, is probably unconstitutional because of the provision of § 8 excepting from the operation of the act agricultural products or live stock while in the hands of the producer or raiser; also combinations or confederations of laborers for the purpose of increase of their wages or redress of griev ances. See § 181; also under Ga. (§ 207); Ill. (§ 209); Ind. (§ 210); Mich. (§ 217); Mont. (§ 221); Neb. (§ 222); N. C. (§ 225); N. D. (§ 226); Tenn. (§ 231); Tex. (§ 232); Wis. (§ 235). For prior anti-trust act, see L. 1890, c. 86; R. S. (Wolff's Ed., 1904), p. 1806. "It shall be unlawful for persons or corporations or their legal representatives to combine or conspire together, or to unite or pool their interests for the purpose § 215. Maine. "It shall be unlawful for any firm or incorporated company, or any number of firms or incorporated companies, or any unincorporated company, or association of persons or stockholders, organized for the purpose of manufac turing, producing, refining or mining any article or product, which enters into general use and consumption by the people, to form or organize any trust, or to enter into any combination of firms, incorporated or unincorporated companies, or association of stockholders, or to delegate to any one or more board or boards of trustees or directors the power to conduct and direct the business of the whole number of firms, corporations, companies or associations which may have formed, or which may propose to form a trust, combination or association inconsistent with the provisions of this section and contrary to public pol icy." 21 § 216. Maryland.22 § 216a. Massachusetts.-"Every contract, agreement, arrangement or combination in violation of the common law in that thereby a monopoly in the manufacture, production or sale in this Commonwealth of any article or commodity in common use is or may be created, established or maintained, or in that thereby competition in this State in the supply or price of any of forcing up or down the price of any agricultural product or article of necessity for speculative purposes; and the legislature shall pass laws to suppress it." Const., art. 190. As to rebate certificates, see R. S. (Wolff's Ed., 1904), p. 1807. 21 R. S. (1903), c. 47, § 53. "No certificate of stock, or other evidence of interest, in any trust, combination or association, as named in § 53, shall have legal recognition in any court in this State, and any deed of real estate given by any person, firm or corporation, for the purpose of becoming interested in such trust, combination or association, or any mortgage given by the latter to the seller, as well as all certificates growing out of such transaction, shall be void." § 54. By § 55 the penalty is a fine of not less than $5,000 or more than $10,000. Compare under Ala. (§ 204); Ill. (§ 209); Iowa (§ 211); Kan. (§ 212); Ky. (§ 213); Mich. (§ 217); Mo. (§ 220). 22 "Monopolies are odious, contrary to the spirit of a free government and the principles of commerce, and ought not to be suffered." Declaration of Rights, art. 41. For similar provisions, see under Ark. (§ 205); N. C. (§ 225); Okla. (§ 228); S. D. (§ 230); Tenn. (§ 231); Tex. (§ 232); Wash. (§ 234); Wyom. (§ 236). such article or commodity is or may be restrained, or prevented, or in that thereby, for the purpose of creating, establishing or maintaining a monopoly within this State of the manufacture, production or sale of any such article or commodity, the free pursuit in this State of any lawful business, trade or occupation is or may be restrained or prevented, is hereby declared to be against public policy, illegal and void." 23 23 L. 1908, c. 454. By § 2 provision is made for an action by the attorney-general to restrain violation of the act. § 3 relates to evidence. 24 L. 1899, c. 255 (§§ 1-12) is substantially identical with Ohio R. S., §§ 4427 (—1)—4427 (-12) respectively (see § 227); and see under Kan. § 212. In Attorney-General ex rel. Wolverine Fish Co. v. Booth, 143 Mich. 89; 106 N. W. 868 (1906), it was sustained as not in contravention of the 14th amend ment. In Booth v. Davis, 127 Fed. 875 (C. C. Mich., 1904), where, however, it was not allowed retrospective application, that is, for the purpose of defeating a contract lawful when made, it was said of the act: "It is directed only against combinations of persons, firms, partnerships, corporations or associations of persons conspiring to cooperate in violation of its provisions, and it contains nothing prohibitive of the acquisition by a person, persons, corporation or association, of the business or property of any person or association, natural or artificial. All such persons or associations may acquire property and carry on business at as many different places as their capital will warrant, and fix their prices for their commodities, providing they do not for that purpose and in its accomplishment, combine with other persons, firms or organizations, to effect any of the ends denounced by the statute." So said with reference to a purchase of the property and good will of a corporation, the stockholders agreeing as an incident of such purchase not to compete with the purchaser. Affirmed as Davis v. Booth, 131 Fed. 31; 65 C. C. A. 269 (6th C., 1904). In Hunt v. Riverside Co-operative Club, 140 Mich. 538; 104 N. W. 40; 112 Am. St. Rep. 420 (1905), the prohibition of the act was applied to a combination among more than three-fourths of the master plumbers in Detroit, and all the manufacturers and dealers in plumbers' supplies in that city-by means of an agreement to keep the selling price for both wholesale and retail dealers at a fixed or graduated figure, to create a monopoly in the business of selling plumbers' supplies in Detroit, and to secure to themselves the benefit of that monopoly. But such prohibition was held inapplicable to an agreement to fix the price of labor, unless part of some undertaking within the prohibition of the act. In Bigelow v. Calumet & Hecla Mining Co., 155 Fed. 869 (C. C. Mich., 1907), such prohibition was applied in holding unlawful the attempt of a corpora § 218. Minnesota.-"No person or association of persons shall enter into any pool, trust agreement, combination, or understanding whatsoever with any other person or association, corporate or otherwise, in restraint of trade, within this State, tion to secure control of another by purchase of its stock as part of a general plan "to secure control of practically the entire output of lake copper." So held, notwithstanding statutory authority in general terms to purchase stock of another corporation. See under N. Y. (§ 224). As to application of act to corporation organized to carry out illegal combination, see Attorney-General ex rel. Wolverine Fish Co. v. Booth, supra. In Attorney-General ex rel. Wolverine Fish Co. v. Booth, 143 Mich. 89; 106 N. W. 868 (1906), §§ 2 and 3 were applied in sustaining a quo warranto proceeding to determine the legality of the incorporation of a foreign corporation. See also, as to proceedings under § 2, Hunt v. Riverside Co-operative Club, supra; Bigelow v. Calumet & Hecla Mining Co., supra. As to application of § 11 to action by stockholder, see Bigelow v. Calumet & Hecla Mining Co., supra. By L. 1905, c. 329, § 1, are declared illegal contracts "not to engage in any avocation, employment, pursuit, trade, profession or business, whether reasonable or unreasonable, partial or general, limited or unlimited." In Grand Union Tea Co. v. Lewitsky, 153 Mich. 244; 116 N. W. 1090 (1908), this was sustained and held not limited "to such contracts as are within the purview of" the act of 1899, supra. By § 2 are declared illegal all combinations to establish and maintain "a monopoly of any trade, pur suit, avocation, profession or business." So by. § 3 any domestic corporation organized to establish and maintain such a combination. By § 3 a foreign corporation organized for such purpose is prohibited from doing business. By § 6 contracts designed to protect the vendee or transferee of a business, etc., are excepted from the operation of the act. As 10 such exception, see Grand Rapids Wood Finishing Co. v. Hatt, 152 Mich. 132; 115 N. W. 714 (1908). A previous act, Compiled Laws (1897), §§ 11377-83, was probably unconstitutional as class legislation. See Davis v. Booth, supra; Merz Capsule Co. v. U. S. Capsule Co., 67 Fed. 414 (C. C. Mich., 1895). In Bingham v. Brands, 119 Mich. 255; 77 N. W. 940 (1899), however, it was held constitutional, without considering the point of it being class legislation. See § 181; also under Ga. (§ 207); Ill. (§ 209); Ind. (§ 210); La. (§ 214); Mont. (§ 221); N. C. (§ 225); N. D. (§ 226); Tenn. (§ 231); Tex. (§ 232); Wis. (§ 235). It was applied in Merz Capsule Co. v. U. S. Capsule Co., in holding illegal an agreement among different corporations and individuals engaged in the business of manufacturing and selling gelatine shells and capsules, to pool their interests and form a new corporation. It seems also to have been applied in Detroit Salt Co. v. National Salt Co., 134 Mich. 103; 96 N. W. 1 (1903). So of a contract of a buyer of lambs not |