commerce, or the cost of exchange or transportation, is prohibited and declared unlawful." 57 "Any person or association of persons who shall create, enter into, become a member of, or a party to, any pool, trust, agreement, combination, confederation, or understanding with any other person or persons, to regulate or fix the price of any article of merchandise or commodity; or shall enter into, become a member of, or a party to, any pool, trust, agreement, contract, combination, or confederation to fix or limit the amount or quantity of any article, commodity, or merchandise to be manufactured, mined, produced, or sold in this State, shall be deemed and adjudged guilty of a conspiracy to defraud." 58 Tex. Civ. App. 118; 54 S. W. 289 (1899). Agreement of buyer to handle during certain period only goods furnished by the seller. Mansur v. Tebbetts Implement Co. v. Price, 22 Tex. Civ. App. 616; 55 S. W. 764 (1900). Combination among all those engaged in supplying ice to the inhabitants of San Antonio. Crystal Ice & Manuf. Co. v. State, 23 Tex. Civ. App. 293; 56 S. W. 562 (1900). Combination among dealers to buy the stock and good will of an opposition dealer for one of the prohibited purposes. So held where the purchaser agreed not to engage in the same kind of business. Comer v. Burton-Lingo Co., 24 Tex. Civ. App. 251; 58 S. W. 969 (1900). In Welch v. Phelps & Bigelow Windmill Co., 89 Tex. 653; 36 S. W. 71 (1896), the act was held not to apply to a mere arrangement between principal and agent, though giving the exclusive right to sell in certain territory and fixing prices, but not investing the agent with title to the goods sold. To similar effect, see Weiboldt V. Standard Fashion Co., 80 Ill. App. 67 (1899), under Ill. act (§ 209). But in Texas Brewing Co. v. Anderson, 40 S. W. 737 (Tex. Civ. App., 1897), the contract was held to be one of sale and not of agency, notwithstanding the use of the word "agents," and to be in contravention of such act. To similar effect, Columbia Carriage Co. v. Hatch, 19 Tex. Civ. App. 120; 47 S. W. 288 (1898). Compare Hathaway v. State, 36 Tex. Crim. 261; 36 S. W. 465 (1896), where a mere agent was held improperly convicted for engaging in a "conspiracy against trade," in violation of the act. The prohibition of the act was held inapplicable to the case of a purchase of certain property, in State v. Shippers' Compress & Warehouse Co., 95 Tex. 603; 69 S. W. 58 (1902); of a contract involving sale of patented articles, in Clark v. Cyclone Woven Wire Fenee Co., 22 Tex. Civ. App. 41; 54 S. W. 392 (1899; see as to agreement for exclusive trade). 57 Comp. Laws (1907), § 1752. 58 Id., § 1753. For similar provisions, see under Ala. (§ 204); Ark. (§ 205); Ill. (§ 209); Iowa § 233a. Virginia.-"The general assembly shall enact laws preventing all trusts, combinations and monopolies inimical to the public welfare." 59 § 234. Washington.-"Monopolies and trusts shall never be allowed in this State, and no incorporated company, copartnership or association of persons in this State shall directly or indirectly combine to make any contract with any other incorporated company, foreign or domestic, through their stockholders, or the trustees or assignees of such stockholders, or with any copartnership or association of persons, or in any manner whatever for the purpose of fixing the price or limiting the produc tion or regulating the transportation of any product or commodity." 99 60 (§ 211); Ky. (§ 213); Minn. (§ 218); Miss. (§ 219); Mo. (§ 220); N. D. (§ 226); S. C. (§ 229). § 1754 seems substantially the same as Ill. L. 1891, p. 206, § 2 (see § 209). By way of penalty for a violation of the act by "a corporation, a company, a firm or association," a fine of not less than $100 or more than $2,000 is prescribed by § 1755 for the first offense; so of not less than $500 or more than $5,000 for the second; not less than $5,000 or more than $10,000 for the third; of $15,000 for any subsequent offense. § 1756 is substantially the same as Ill. L. 1891, p. 206, § 4, which see, save that the minimum fine is here $100. "Any contract or agreement in violation of any provision of this title shall be absolutely void." § 1757. By §§ 175860 provision is made for a proceeding for the forfeiture of the rights and franchises of a domestic corporation violating any of the preceding provisions. By § 1761 treble damages are allowed for any injury sustained in consequence of a violation of any of such provisions. See under Cal. (§ 206); Kan. (§ 212); Mich. (§ 217); Miss. (§ 219); Mo. (§ 220); Neb. (§ 222); N. M. (§ 223); Ohio (§ 227); Okla. (§ 228); S. D. (§ 230); Wis. (§ 235). "Any combination by individuals, corporations or associations, having for its object or effect the controlling of the price of any products of the soil, or of any article of manufacture or commerce or the cost of exchange or transportation, is prohibited, and hereby declared unlawful and against public policy. The legislature shall pass laws for the enforcement of this section by adequate penalties, and in case of incorporated companies, if necessary for that purpose, it may declare a forfeiture of their franchise." Const., art. 12, § 20. For a similar provision, see under N. D. (§ 226). See as to combinations to control information or news for publication, Comp. Laws (1907), §§ 1762x2, et seq. 59 Const., art. 12, § 165. 60 Const., art. 12, § 22. "The leg § 235. Wisconsin.-"Every contract or combination in the nature of a trust or conspiracy in restraint of trade or commerce is hereby declared illegal." 1 der the laws of this State which islature shall pass laws for the enforcement of this section by adequate penalties, and in case of incorporated companies, if necessary for that purpose, may declare a forfeiture of their franchise." Id. For similar provisions, see under Idaho (§ 208); Md. (§ 216); Mont. (§ 221); N. C. (§ 225); S. D. (§ 230); Tenn. (§ 231); Wyom. (§ 236). In Wood v. City of Seattle, 23 Wash. 1, 20; 62 Pac. 135, 141; 52 L. R. A. 369, 393 (1900), such provision was held not to invalidate a municipal ordinance authorizing consolidation of competing street railway lines. For prohibition of pooling contracts among carriers, see Const., art. 12, § 14; of restrictions upon competition in insurance business, Codes, etc. (1897), § 2841b. 61 Stat. (1898), § 1747e. See Hawarden v. Youghiogheny & L. Coal Co., 111 Wis. 545; 87 N. W. 472; 55 L. R. A. 828 (1901). "Every person who shall combine or conspire with any other person to monopolize or attempt to monopolize any part of the trade or commerce in this State shall forfeit for each such offense not less than $50 nor more than $3,000. Any such person shall also be liable to any person transacting or doing business in this State for all damages he may sustain by reason of the doing of anything forbidden by this section." Id. For other provisions as to liability for damages, see under Cal. (§ 206); Kan. (§ 212); Mich. (§ 217); Miss. (§ "Any corporation organized unshall enter into any combination, 219); Mo. (§ 220); Neb. (§ 222); N. M. (§ 223); Ohio (§ 227); Okla. (§ 228); S. D. (§ 230); Utah (§ 233). In Bratt v. Swift, 99 Wis. 579; 75 N. W. 411 (1898), an action was held maintainable under this provision. The damages recoverable by the plaintiff were declared to be "such sum as would measure his loss of profits and also loss by diminution in the value of his property, by reason of the wrongful acts of the defendants"; but it was held error to admit evidence, as bearing on the question of damages, of the value of the several articles or pieces of property which he sold, and the prices for which he sold them when he sold out his business. By § 1747f provision is made for proceedings to prevent or restrain a violation of the provisions of § 1747e. By § 1747g provision is made for the examination of a party. "The word 'person' wherever used in the three next preceding sections (i. e., §§ 1747e-g) shall be deemed to include besides individuals, corporations, partner. ships and associations existing under or authorized by the laws of the United States, any of the territories of this or any other State or of any foreign country; provided that nothing therein shall be construed to affect labor unions or any other association of laborers organized for the purpose of promoting the welfare of its members, nor associations or organizations intended to legitimately pro conspiracy, trust, pool, agreement or contract intended to restrain or prevent competition in the supply or price of any article or commodity in general use in this State or constituting a subject of trade or commerce therein, or which shall in any manner control the price of any such article or commodity, fix the price thereof, limit or fix the amount or quantity thereof to be manufactured, mined, produced or sold in this State, or fix any standard or figure by which its price to the public shall be in any manner controlled or established, shall upon proof thereof, in any court of competent jurisdiction, have its charter or authority to do business in this State cancelled and annulled." 62 § 236. Wyoming.-"There shall be no consolidation or combination of corporations of any kind whatever to prevent competition, to control or influence productions or prices thereof, or in any manner to interfere with the public good and general welfare." 63 mote the interests of trade, commerce or manufacturing in this State." § 1747h. For similar exemptions, see under Ill. (§ 209); La. (§ 214); Mich. (§ 217); Mont. (§ 221); Neb. (§ 222); N. C. (§ 225). 62 § 1791j as amended by L. 1905, c. 507, § 7; L. 1907, c. 562; see as to affidavit to be filed with annual report. For similar provisions, see under Ga. (§ 207); Kan. (§ 212); Mich. (§ 217); Miss. (§ 219); Neb. (§ 222); N. Y. (§ 224); N. D. (§ 226); Ohio (§ 227); S. D. (§ 230); Tex. (§ 232). As to application of § 1791j to right under patent, see Rubber Tire Wheel Co. v. Milwaukee Rubber Works Co., 142 Fed. 531 (C. C. Wis., 1906); reversed in 154 Fed. 358; 83 C. C. A. 336 (7th C., 1907). By S8 1791k-m provision is made for addressing inquiries to a corporation for the purpose of determining whether it has violated any provision of § 1791j, and for forfeiture of the charter. See § 17911 as amended by L. 1905, c. 507, § 8. For similar provisions, see under Ark. (§ 205); Ill. (§ 209); Mo. (§ 220); Tex. (§ 232). For provisions similar to the above, applicable to foreign corporations, see L. 1905, c. 506. 63 Const., art. 10 (Corporations), § 8. Compare under Ga. (§ 207); N. Y. (§ 224). "Perpetuities and monopolies are contrary to the genius of a free State, and shall not be allowed." Const., art. 1, § 30. For similar provisions, see under Ark. (§ 205); Md. (§ 216); N. C. (§ 225); Okla. (§ 228); S. D. (§ 230); Tenn. (§ 231); Tex. (§ 232); Wash. (§ 234). INDEX. ACTION- [References are to pages. at law, as remedy, 180. AGENT. See PRINCIPAL AND AGENT. AGREEMENTS NOT TO BID, 286. ANTI-TRUST LEGISLATION. See FEDERAL ANTI-TRUST ACT; LEGISLA- ARBITRATION- of disputes between employer and employee, 84. ARTICLES OF NECESSITY- application to, of doctrine against restrictions upon competition, 254, 442. what are, 254. ATTORNEY-GENERAL- proceeding by, 317, 334. BID. See AGREEMENTS NOT TO BID. BLACKLISTING- of debtor, 46. definition and legality of, 91. injunction against, 197. BOYCOTT. See FEDERAL ANTI-TRUST ACT. definition of, 50. legality of, 52. relation justifying, 56. by trade competitor, 72. by employer, 96. by employee, 132. to procure discharge of employee, 133. secondary, 135. as distinguished from incident illegal acts, 157. |