House Bill JJo. 231, pro9idlnC thst It it conflicts oith State anti-trust laws it shnll bo null end void 

### holdin aohfllct with such anti-trunt Iswe and there: l-or0invalid.

--^-

_ -- _-_-

- OFFICE C!P TRD ATTORIGY C'i~DX~L


### June28,1939

conorable

W. Lae,O'Daniel Governor

ofTcxss hustin,

Texas

ODlnion Do. o-lC33 Cl: Vnlidity of Route Bill Do. 231
We hsvo for ackuowled~~ant your l~ettcr of Juuc 22, 1939, wheroln you eck the opi.nionof this Dcpnrtmnt upon certain qu?stiox rolatla:jto tha vnlldity of IlouseDill iio.231, the *fair trade*'

Act, the questions oo!:cd being as l'ollows:
"1. Does the Caption of the bill, under the Constitution, enfficlcntly set out the purpose and cover the subfect mttrr of the bill? I call your particular uttention to that part or the Cnption which says that it la for the purpose of protcctinC tmdc-x?rk omors, diotributors and the Ccncrol pub110 o~aiunt injurious and uncconoxic practices in tho distribution of articles of standard quality undor diotlnCuished tmdemrk, brand or nane, etc., and would like for you to advise ~19if this in suifioiently consistent with the seation of the bill deali% with the subject and if it does, in fact, amply with the Constitution in @vine notice of the oontents of the bill? Plcnsc alsomska your nnswer applioable'to each and eoery part of the Caption.
***2.** 

### Is thereanypmoision of theAct in its purposeend final result in confliot tith Chapter 3, 

### Title19oft?ePenalOodeofthisState,orwith Title120 of tho Revleed 

### CivilStatutes of 

### 19257 qn ooaneatlon dth 

### theabove I anderstand 

### that **tlkm** 

### 16 **almyr ‘** **h q&egitiou**  **08 to**  

### wlmthcror **not the**  

### kind0f~c0ntreot6’0ont~p~ut0a **in** 

### thb **Act aro**  **in** 

### violation**or** 

### somenati-trust stetuts. Ir **the oontraota**  

### described

arenot iavlolstlon ofthe statute.it wouldbecoaedifficult tounderstand

thePurposeof thisAct. "3. If the manufacturer or other peroon sclliu~ to a dealer in Texas enter into a cootreot with hln wiith'theprovlrions stated,and he aCroon and obliCatea himself to oell **the** Coo& at a price stipulated by such mnufncturer, or other person, does **ho,** by reason

### Iron. F. Loo C'Dsnicl, June 20, 1930, l?zCo2.

of this Act or euch contr-ct. hwc my protection acninst such n4anufoctuicror ot!lcrn~roon i'urnichinc [:oodsto cnothcr ~lrchont in the o&c vicinity for Gal0 at fldil'forontprice, or no price at oil? In other words, if one local dcolcr LC-kesa contract forthc purchnao of co%.oditioo for rennle with the mnufocturor and arreec to sell the:: at a fixed price, can hc by the term of this bill h,jvunn opreormnt in hia contract thct the rmnufncturcr will not sell to one of bit coxJP?titorsct 0 different price, or no Eircd price? If such provision shouldbo in the contract vtouldit be a lawful provision.? 

### "4. I would like for you to cdvice no the mooning and effect of Paragraph 2 of Seotion 1, recdine as follo,xi:
'That v~ilfully'andknoiirin$yofferin; for salt or cellinS any cor3aodityat less than the tninixndprice ntipulotcd in any contract cntercd into pursuant to tho proricions of this Act, whether the per-on eo offcri~ for. sale or sellin;.is or is not a party to such contract, in unfair co!lpetition and is actionable nt the.suit of any person dnna::cdtboraby.

...'
"Do you consider this lan!:u:rco cufficiently definite and ccrtein-to bc binding7 

### "5. Ilocco advise *coin Pcrticulnr if pnro~rcph 3 of Section 2 is in violation of any Sedoral levror, if effcctivc, uould it onend, uodify or repeal any of' the Anti-Truut 1~~s of the Stats of Terns? 

### "6. Is any portion of said Act in conflict \;lth the Constitution end law of the Ilnitcd Ctntcc or of the stntn or TCXC87" Sincc.uz hnvo reached the conclusion that House Bill Do. 231 is'in contrnvcntion of and conflicts 74th the anti-trust l~vls of the State of Texas, and thercforc, by virtue of the PrOViSiOns of Section 7 of House Bill No. 231, is 0 nullity and of no force or effect whatoocver, It becozss unneceescry ct this tin0 to enSaS In the extensive study neccosary in order to enable us lntelli~ently to ensv!erother quostlono of const1tutlonolity ana statutory constructionproeonted 10 your inquiry.

We-have presentcd 

### in thieHouseBill**emote& by**  **the** 

### ,Je&lelature

ai theStite'oi 

### Texm thenovelaa&peoullar rltustfon

ofa lecidatlvebodyprwldin(: **that** 

### the Aot deslGned to relieve **oortaln** types of oontracts iron tho prohlbltlons contained in the anti-trust laws of tbe State of Texas. shell be decned null and void and of no force and offcct WhntsOaVcr if it is effective to eccozpllsh the desired Purpose. IiOVCl and poculinr though thlc situationnay bc, it is neverthsleos theduty of this Dcportncnt and of all officers of the Soverment chargedwith the duty of cnforcinC such lew to Give full efEcct to the cxprocsad lntcntlon of the Le~isloturo. Section 7 of F!ouse Bill No. 231 reads 0s follows:non. :‘I. Lee O~Dzc~icl,

Zuno 78, 1939, I’a~o3.

lWothin;:in this Act ohnll cvcr bc conotrtied as arzndin3, no::ifyin::, saspcndlnf*

or rcpeslln:; any of the la::-s

of this St.atodzflnlnfi cm) prohibitinC trirts, nono~olicc, and concpiracics against trudc, viith p~rticulnr rcfcrencc to C!lapter 3, Title 19, Fenol Code cl’the Stctc of Tcms, nnd Tl.tlc126, Heviscd Civil Ctctutct of Tercs, 1925, aud if any provision of this Act is hc1.dto bc in oont~cvontion of or coni‘lictoltiiany of said lcwa, tbon said provision shall be null and void arid of no force or effect.” Sections 1, 2, 3, and 4 of Doufie Bill No. 231 read as follms: “Section 1. That no contrcct rolatinC to the sale oz rcrclo of a commodity which bonrs, or the label cr cohtcnt ofwhich bcsrs, the trade-r&ark, brand, or no::8of the producer or cri:ncr of such oomodity, nnd which is in fuir oud open coxpetltion v:ithcoxioditicn oi”the s*r:c Ccnaral class produced by others, if not in violation of Clmpter 3, Title 19, Penal Code of the State of Texas or Title 126, Rcvincd Civil Statute3 of Texgr,, 19% and if mic I’ora period not in oxc3s:iof two (21 y.:srsfro:1the date of its execution, shnl.1 be dconed in violation of my I.&I; of the State of Texas by ro~coh of any of t!ic~Yollo?:ln;: provisions vr!~ich xay bo coctained in Each contract:
“1. That the buyer will not resell such cora~o~ity,

belo:!the mininur~grice stipulated by the vendor.

“2. That vrilfullyand knov?inClyofferir;S ror sale or sellin::any comodity at less than the z&niml: Drice stipulated in any contract entered into purcuant to the provisions of thisAct, whether the person so offering,for sale or sclli~ is or is not a party to such contract, lo unfair coapctition and is actiomble at the suit of any person dcxaged thereby.
Tbat the vendee or produoorrequire any dealer% rrhozs he nay roooll such camodity to agree that ho 

### ~~111 not,inturn,resell, balm the nin5x~ru

price+xulatob **by** such **reador or**  **by rnab** 

**. tendee.** 

“1. ic OlO.SinJJ OUtthe Oimer’s GtOC@ for the purpose of dlscontlnulnS dellvery of any such comodlty; provided, homver. that such stock is first oficrcd to the rmmfccturcr of such stock Gt thf? O*i~iIl7lllnvoicc price, at lenst ten (10) (Jr.ys b,,ro:.c

o,:c>stock shallbi:ofl’orod for sale to the public.

”2

. Khen the Coodn are dns$Ccd or‘dateriorntod 111qunlity, and notlca io ;:ivcbto the public thereof.IfOli. Y. Lot o’rl~nlol, June 2C, 1989, lnC,e 4.

“3. Ry any oi’ficcr actin: under the ordorn or any court.
‘!EOC.3. The follozin2 terms, as urod in this Act, am hereby dafincd as follo~;s: ~~Froduccr~ mz3ns Cromr, bn?ccr, maker, manufacturor,norpublisher. “‘Co:.>nodity’

means ony rubjoct of oozmerco.
“SCC. 4. This Act shall not npply to any contraot or cqrccmont betv:ocnthe produco?s or bctricen vrholcsalero or betv;sonrotallers,’ is furt!xr a6 to sole or resale priors. It

specificslly provided that suoh contracts betwcn said parties are horcby declared void.” Title 12G, I&vised Civil Statuteo of the Stat.0of Texas, is the Title of our Civil Stntutos rclotinC to trusts an& conspiraoico a:rainsttrudo. The ~wovisiono of such title, applicable.

to the oP.aract?r of c~rsmonta with *:ihich Xouse Bill No. 231 is conoerncd, are quoted belo?~:

“Article 7426

. A ‘trust’ is a oombinotion of capital, skill, or acts by t?:oormorn parsons, .firms,corporations, or oseoolations of perzons, or cith.orTao or more of the::,for cithor, nny, or all OF tho folloulnC purpocos: “1. To crents, or which may tond to create, or carry out rsatrictions in trade or oo~meroo

... or to crcato or onrry out restrictions in the free pursuit of any businoco authorized or permitted by laws of this.Etato. “2. To fix, maintain, increase, or reduce the price of’

merchcndiao, produce, or commodities

... ‘c5. To arovont or lessen competition in tho manufacture, mnk,inC,trnnsportation, sale or purohaso of acrohandicc, produce, or commodities

... “4. To fix or naintoin any standnrd or tiguro whcroby the price of any article or cor~lodityof morohandiso, produce, or ooFzzroo
... shall be in any manner nffootod, controlled, or established.
“5.. To make, enter into, maintain, execute or carry out any contract, obligation or uCreemsnt bywhich the parties thereto bind, or havo bound themselves not to oell, dispose of, trans_oortor to prepnrc for riirkctor trunsportation any article or commodity

... or by whlc!rthey shsll aCrea in any manner to !ceepthe prioo of suoh article or commodity

... nt a fixed or Crndod figure, or by which they shsll in any mannor affect or maintain the price of any commodity or article

... to preclude a froo and unrestricted competition amonf: tberlcclvcsor others in the sale

... of any ouch article or co>!!lodity, or by :;hichthay shill aCroc to pool, co:lbine,or unite ony intorostn tboy may have in connection with the r:alaor purchase Of any article or co:-modity

... whereby its prioo or such oharp ml&. br?in any n::nncrnffcctcd.Bon. !?. Lee O’Daniol, June CC, 1939, Face 5. -



### “6. To rqulate, fix or l.indttho outpat of my nrticlo or co.mmodity v:hich may be monufoctured, mined, produced or sold,

... “7. busincos ,,

To~cbstoin from enCagi.nCin or contlnuins or rron the purchase or sale 0r nbrchandisc, prcduco or oo?modities psrtially or entirely within tho Stat0 of Texas, or any portion thereof.” hrticle 7429 provides as i’olla;vs: “Any and all trusts, nonopolies and oouspiraoics in reotrnint of trade, as heroin dofined, ara prohibited and declsrod to be illeCa1.” hrticle 7430 providoo in effect ‘thattho charter of an,y corporntion c:rwtor+d under tho law of Texan which may be

. euilty of violotin3 any provision of the Title 1X, may be forfeited at th? rcquost oi’ tho httornsy General, if in the judcxent of tho Court trying the 0~159,the public int.erost requires such forfeiture. Article 7437 provides: “Any contract or sCroer:ontin violation of any provision of this subdivision shullbe absolutely void and not enforcible either in low or oqulty.~~
Tha balance of Title 13!0contains msny othor provisions dotiGncd to make offectivo the prohibitions contained in subdivinion 1 of the Tit1.e. Articles 1632, lG33, 1634, oontainod in Chapter 3, Title 19, of our Fanal Code, arc but verbatim copiss of Az%icles 7426, 742.7, and 7428 ol’our Revised Civil Statutes, referred to abova. Article 1635 of our Penal Codo provides that whoever vlolntoc any provision of such Chsptor shnll be confined in ths ponitontiory not loss than two nor more than ten Years, The belanca of the Titla contains provisions not hecessnry to bo notiood in connection with the discussion involved horoin.
Even a cosunl reading;of the provisions of the above statutesdisclo;:csthat thoy wre dcnignod to prevent the lixir~~

of prioas of artiolos of ooxxrco in any mannor by the combined efforts of tv:oor more individuals, firms, Corporations, or associations or pcrcons. Tho anti-truet lnws oonstituto a 1oCislativn reooznition that oombinstions, hzvlnCror thoir purpo-c or effcctin;: by their acts the firinC of prices, nro obnoxious to the public interest, and dicplnya desire to enact ooaprohcncivo laws to render suoh l’rice-l=ixin~

i113(;ol,

uncnforoiblc, and puoichoblc criminally,
no rzrttorhov it may be souCht to bu ncconplishod, rrhothcr dlxotly or indir3ctly.

so fer nc o:,xr

anti-truct 1~s condemn co-collod “VWt.iC.11” price-fixin::,they ‘coilr:tituto :,uts lc~iolativc adoption t!n:l rocoyition of the otntemnnt rondoby the SUprO:lO COUl’t of the United States in tho cam of Strauo VS. Victor Tnlkin-!.:achineCo., 243lJ.S. 490, Gl L. Ed. Oi,O,that attemptsto 0011 property for o full price and yet to place rcotraints upon its lurthor olicnstion, have hem obnorioun and hstoful to the law frcilthe days of Lord Co‘ze, bcaaurs obnozioua to t!lc public interest.
In order to'undorstsnd thoro;t::hlY thu nnturr of tho problm prosontcd in conncctio!l r:ithsuch lwc es the ohs under consideration, it is perhnpn cdvicablo thnt vzorcvicw the ar~umnts ih favor of and a~alnst such 1n:vs. It is contcndcdby ndvocntos of such lo,:iolntionthat the mumfncturer of'trsdo-marked or broddcd nrticlcs of co:mxco hao a vital intcrc::tin tho Coo3 vzillcnCendcred by the sale of such Coo& vith his brand or tmdc-sark upon thorrl; that price-cuttiaz in such goods by rct.cilorsto v/ha71 ths r*onufccturcr or distributor has ~olc?t!:cm results in danaCe to the r~nufaCtul~CP'~: COO4 Uill; thst the dn:mCc thus sustained inoronoss themnufactursr's costs and,iaRnirs his ability tonsrket his coodo and ronults in incrsaccd prices for such ,-oods to the buyin: ~mbllo. (7 A.L.R. 453-43a). It lo argued that Vertical" price-fixing;--thatis, price-firing, on a bran&xl co:n;odityin coxpetition v!ithother branded commodities of a similar class, by a~recnont botwon the r~anufnctureror the distributor and the dealers in such cocmodity, cs to the oricas for which his coxodity alone nay be sold, is bcncficinl to tho public Ccncrelly; vrhcrcns, it is cdnittod tht '*horizontnl' price-fixing aCro-s.ntc-- that is, price-fixinC botv;ocnr:anu1eoturoroor dealers in similsr cox:odi.tiss nnrmnlly in cor:petitionr&oh vith the other, is decidedly ininioul to the public Interest. On ths contrary, the arCumentc npninst such price-fixing arc phrased as folloxs by the l'odcrclTrade Carzlissionreport for the ficonl ycor ending Juno ZO, 1910:

"I. The powr to fix prices will usually be abused by the OlkW2C Of too 10~ Proms; "2. Renslc prioor~aintenancoprotects and ancouracas inofficicnt jobbcrs and prevents elinination in the over-crorldcd field of r&ldlc;wn; "3. It tends to secure cooperation of Ccnlors and to prcjudicc the:4 a&net brands xhose prices are not fixed; "4. It forces other dealers to atteapt the control of prices; n5. It oncournces Ccneral otandurdization of prices end elimination of normal COnpetitiOn among dedsrs; and, "6. It forcas the ultinato oonsuzsr to Roy hidhcr prices and leaves him no borPinin3 Powr with rocpect to tho article concerned." (7 A.L.R. 45s)
It io, of course, tho proroeativo of tbo LcCislal;urO,in the oxercico of its conctitutiorml authority to oriCinoto such lerislo'tio:l

.I.s tb!n, ana of t!loCovomor, in the crsrcise of AIo oonstitut;.onol.outhority to vcto,or npprove, to Salonce thccoargumnt,s and concidorntions tho on0 ayalnst .thaother, ootor:line

their validity, end to tnko such octlon es, to tllanl, eppesrs to bo in the intcrcst of the public ConerallY.In LhC Ob~O!lCOOf OilyCOilstitution:~l inhi:,ition; noitber this DCPa~V:.etLt nor the courtn uould h?vc any rl.i;htfuleoncorn :-At!1

t!:cq~l0~3tioll

of ptlblio

polJcy irvolvcd, Since t!:u r:;?to~:~;i~xtion

or th?.tquestion or pubL!,io pa,cy is ~:ovmnxl by fioilin;:~ of fact, ::nc:

iJ!O?o:!i:r

to r:2koSllCll fiAi::;s of f::otis by our Comtitutlon c~01uSi~ly vOStOd in ti'.c Lo~i;.lnture

Snd in tho Cbi-f X:cooutlveof the St3t9.
It folls:iStbct if the Act h2d uilcqL"ivocallg olesptcd r.ach qyozi2:nt.o3s nra contmplntod by it:; term fron the provisionc of the anti-trust 108s of the Stat!:of Tome, this Dcgartr.cnt

shouldbe concernsd only xith t:-.e qumtion of its conctiV~tion2lity. The Act, hcwevor, does not mire such uocquirocal oxmption,~but cxprcssly provides tbot if t.? 0 contr:ictcsanctio;xd ty it era vior:,tivr? or t!:ose State anti-tlust lovs clreuly onzctcd rindin full force nnd cfl'c0t t!:o

Act itself, not tbo imti-trus
k ln!Ys,r.l!all be null Sn(:1

void nnd of no force Sad ol'feot. ‘0that it becoxos nocexi;ry for this Dzpnrtxnt r?ttho 1tsctto conriidcrthe qxstion of vhcth.crt!E Act by 'it's own tori:3 12; a nullity, and thl:,qucttionbcin~;dutcrninzd in t:?o affir3stire, Soy quOtAion of conotitutiocclify baoozos rloot. By nu::::rous

docioionn in tho St.nteof Texas, our courts have detcr:.:icaii

t!xL 03r Stat.0anti-trust lo?;S ro:ld3r absolutely n:lllant: void VSrtionl" pl.lcc-fixfnf; cqroezzonts ontwcd into b:lt!:cen xionufucturorsor dir?.ri~ultors ond retailers, :;heri;by

the rotoilcr n;,7,rcec to roS,oll

on Srticlc of oome1'co in tJ:ia State only St e xioo fissd by the I:onufSctureror dirtributor of Such nrticlc of cc:xsroo.
In the ci:seof Coddoll VS. ::Stkins(C.C.A. Son Antonio) 227 9. V!.m't, t.l?C court mid:
"If by the fores of this contract qnd the control civen thcreun<cr, th3 rosSlc of the product in thic Stat0 iS linitcd to Sny prcxribcd telTitoly, or to o fixed _orlcc,Oi’the rctuilcr is required to devote all hiS tixe to tho Sole of those particular r,ood..:; and my not cn.pCe in any othzr busiwsr;, t!l:n *EDeny tbst cwh contract'... is in contravention of 0'2r anti-trust StStutcrr

end :l,crSforoinvalid."
In the oaeo of ScCnll VS. ::CCnllCO., 104 6. !:;. W3, t?le Supra:~ Cowt of the State of TexSS hSld 8 contract for S Enlo or ~mLtcr!ls, o'bli::stln::

So;Sll to Sol1 no othw pattcrx exoept :'c~all~t:,

and to rcccll ot pricoS fixed by !.'oCall, to be void, in uiolfitionof Tcxas onti-trust luVl;rr., suyin:::
WT~I~ oolltrnctfixes the price St which tho vendee Shall Sell in TOxSr.and provides t.hnt ho Shsll refrain fro;:r.cllin~ at retnil in Toxns nny ot!icr pattern tbnn the I.:oCnll pattern. Thin brines it under the juriohiction of the TcXuS 1~~3."
To the c;(,y:,~

effect, UpOll SiIdlSr foCtS Se0 Pictorial RQV~W co. vs. Pate Eros. (C.C.I.. Ft. :..orti,j,

1e3 3. 7:.509. yjlf3 o:rc-r:j<

fro::tl:,c

opinion in Cr:~:Z~oll VL‘.:IutlCi3S j::edioine

CO. cited aboxc, is quotnd ~ltl'r npi:rowl in theRon. Yf.Loo O~iJsniol, Juno 223,1959, DoSo S.

caeo of F. Y!.

Cooke vs. PaS.0(C.C.A. San Xntonio),~294 S. 71. 934, as well as in many other Texas caooo.
In the 9aoe of Rubb-Dices Co. VS. l~!ibohell (C. c. k. AmtAn), -231C. ::'. 425, it was held t!mt a oontroct bctwoen a wholesale and a rutail dealcr providin=.that the rotailor should resell tractors at a price fixed by tho rmnufacturer, R;nry Ford, for solo to the retail trade, and requiring the viholcsaler.torolxiburso the retailer for any docrcaso in the retail price of tho troctoro, ~a* nn qrocmcnt to fix and aalntafn the price 

### fortho sale of such conaodity, and Sheraforeviolative of our Stato nnti-trust laws, honoe void.
In tbo oasa.of Cooa Cola Co. YE. The Stnto,.?PS S. ;?.791, tbc court announced tho rule that our State anti-t,rJstlaw xre &pplioable to sales of wtented, copyrighted, or tmde- ~mr%od articles, statlnS:

"The owner of'

an article protectad by a patent, co:,y1~gllt,

or trsde-rark,v!henhs hns rsnufacturad anO cold the soae, .osnnotinpocc restrlotlons on his vcndca OS to tho future sale of sane. R..vinS marted with his ovmershlp tberain .sit entcrs tho ohannolo of trade as en article of oo~znorce,and Is thorcaftor beyond his control." This rule of lnr?

WC cltod v;ithapproval in ths ease of Rowers 

### Y. ':iostinghouso Electric Supply Co., 116 S. If.(2.6) SBG, writ of error rofuoed by our Suprexc Court, by the Austin Court of Civil Appeals in tbc ca*e of Notional Autormtic IkkchineCo. vs. Enith, 32 S. Y. (23) 679, and by the Toxcrkana Court of Civil A?>>als in ths OQCO 

### of Tri-State Soles Co. Vs. Rational Autoxltio ::ochinaCo., 38 8. iY.(2d) 059.
In each of the follozinS cases, tho contracts with vhlch the courts v,orodealing prorllnontlylnvolvod acre+ ncnts bctv:oonnaaufocturars or distributors and dcelsrs to whom they wxo sellinS their yoods that such dcolaro should resell such Sooda only et retail prices fixed by the mawfocturer or dietributor. In oath cnso, such "vortioal' price-fixing q

(;roaxent

was held to be void because in Vlolation of our Ststo anti-trust laws: vi.T. RawloiSh Co. vs. Ds?:cr,et al (C.C.A. Texarkena). 117 s. R. (2d) 1117.
Karathon Oil Co. vs. Rodlay, et al (C.C.A. Ft. ?iorth), 107 5. V'.(2d) Oes, writ di~!ri~scd.
EcConnon vs. Ralston, et al, 275 8. 1?.165.
XoConnon vs. I!nrshnll,et al (C.C.A. Texnrkana), 280 s. iY.323.

a. T. Rav:lciehCo. vs. BraCberry'(C.C.A. Ar,erillo), 290 S. >I.870. 71.T. Rnwloigh Co. vs. Rudeon, et 01 (C.O.A. Rl IOOO), 200 3. iv.775.

v. T. RnviloiShCo. vs. Gober, ct nl*(C.C.A- ?aco), I3S. 71.(2d) S45. .p

.

J. R. v;atkinoI:cdionlCo.~va. Johnson, ot al (C.C.A. Son Antonio), lG:!S. L:.394.In each of the sbovo cltod oo!xs Jurl refwr.:d to, there ycro ‘oth.?r

violi:tlouco!'

tho out!-tmst lo\~:s,j.nvol.vod finsuch contracts, SUOh 65 ~O~l211?~2IIt!;t?;:.:t ti7.a c.OOci:i

bo sold by the rctcllor only in c czrtnin tcixlt.crry, or t&t the dcalor should bind hi:Gclf to co11 no otbm {;oodsof o sllnllar

chnractcr, or th;t the dmler dfl.1'ota his ontire tlr:eonly to the hole of the p2::ticulnr ccr.i;6il:*'c

:mrchnndloe; but it is oppcront i'roi;l tho follo;.lr.::

clcesreforrcd to balm t!,:lt

ho stipulotinn In tl:ocoutx,.ct> i.:hich chiofly conccrnod tho courtswus thnt fixlfizprice::, and ti::lt the othor Ptlpul5tionc roforra~ to mro rcfcrdr3 Vi tho courts, es they are by the anti--trustloo;:,ao viu:ous ond coatrnry to tho public iMcrc:t becnuce they afford ef'fectivc:~xm by Yzhlchpri63 control nay bc mlntolnod.
In tha csse of J. R. !%tkino !~:odical Co. vs. Johnson et al (C.C.2.Son Antonio), lG2 S. VT.384, t?m Cm-t, in di6tfntl\ishillC the :'U~;'cmCourt c2coo of Idb6i%y;16 CD. vr. Feist GO., nnQ Fuqa 78. Fiwrin~ Co., ro::clks:

'I... they nrc clomly dlntingsi:5hnblo. In the Fuqnn caao the fmrtics sourht to con!.rol th6 Pl'iCC nlld SirlC Of t!lcb.:cr oftcl t!lutitle theroto v~stxl f.nthe purchd::x?, ns ~011~ 6% to dopriro the buyer end sollor ol t!w r,i~htto (:s:l wit3 any other jx?rsono with roforcnce to the EWZB cozziodltyin the oc::wtarritory durlw: the tsm of the cont.rnct. In tho F'eistcast? no cfrort me rude to co:;troloi'lixit tho Ciq~orition of tke (;ooas

... but to bind the soiler to 3511 tiresme class of GOOR::to no other pxrson in the ~'s;:o territory i'or

n lirlltcdtlxa. The contrwt clcnrly shirjlcthat Feint P-. Cwp?ruy vw1'0 in no :mmm lirlitcd in ttc?irri::htto cull or to fix the prim or the (:oodsor in my mmcr to coriLro1or llr.:lt ho free and Unro6tXIiIlsd tiTffi6 in th0 :~OOds cold oftor thc.titlu thcrzto v3stcd in l‘clst;:Coqmy, The corn con be mid of' the coca of Xclipoc i%iat Cmpnny vs. NW Froccso rtoo?ln;. Co:'1>ouy."
In the 6660 of Double Seal Hin;:Co.x:mny vs. Keith, (C.C.A. Pt. ;:'orth), 107 S. i'l.

(2d) 428, writ roi'uoed,the Court rooo,';nirud thnt if the oontroct there undm considorotlon bsd boon oue of rslo, rnthnr then one of ogonoy, and hn(lfixed the rcsalc prlco$ at vihlohthe 00n'~10cliti6~ !nustbo rold, it would I!;vo bcon in violetion of our Statc anti-trust laws.
In the OGL:C of tiuEnmel Point Co. Vs. Davis (G.C.A. Ft. Korth), G3 S. IV.(7.d) RCl, the Court, lu holdin!!that a contract for the sale of paint not ctipulntinz tbot thz? distributor S1oulG be tho co1.0 dlntributor in tho torrltory deolC:nateduor binding him to ccl]. at o fl:ml prloo, did not rioloto Stato,nnti-trust law, rennrks:

VW Century ;.:anufnctiirin:Co. vs. Bohouror (VOXOS **CC:X!~:::~O~** 6r hp 61.:;)45 L;. .::.(?a) 560, is not in pglnt, slnc2 the contmct tllorc conctruud dld stipuloto 8 fixed price for which the articles oontrnctcd for should bo cold.*It nuct bz notod, of oourcc, tlat tho ceeo of Rcw cc!:tury'JInnui"acturlny, Co. VS. Cohourar ho3.d D contract to p?~rchese

point contoinln: proVl;:io:w rixilg:tho mm10 price Of point to bn in violation of the l?o&rcl entitrust 1~s; but it is api:nrciIt lmt the Fo;t Yorth Cwrt of CiVll Ap?cnlo conntracd tl:rct 03s:: as equally n~plfcnblc to our State anti-trust lnxo.
In the moo of :I T. Rarlei~b Co. VS. Flotohcr, et cl,

. (C.C.A. Tcxlrkana), 275 S. 1. 210, the Coupt ctatcd thot the fact Wet D.

buyer, puro!acl~~ nrtlclcs ootrl:;ht, Vas ln~i'ely

~ovorncd by the scllcr*c "l;u:::L'.?3tcG prlcob" in dir;- posing of articlea bou;ht did not 111 and of itself oonetituto 6 viol;:tionof State m&l-trust lew. The Court says:

There lb no find.lngthat it UUB a part of the contract l-orrlotcksr to ye;011 the r,oodcatp~lcas listed to hl&. The fmre feet that 'in di~po~lu::of‘the products purclasod by hlx,' TletchJr 'I:23

lcrcely ~OV0XIlGd by 'n B'Ji~~\OSted retell grim list of JI1‘OduCtcq v;ouldnot, In i,tcolf,

bc .=I vlol:jtlonof'

tho ctatutec." That csee, themfore, turns upon the failura to be&blioh either the n~roc.;:ant or the cuctox i!zply:ni- en ayrccmnt., to rerzcll

nt priccc fired by the co;!wny, the court ncceccnrlly lsplyln: that lr Flotchor h?d obll;;qtod hirxolf to rcasll at prlccs fixed by the co~ipony,tbsro v~ould hnve cxistcd cuch n cozblnntion 86 in redo unlwful by tho nntitruot lo~.zor TCXI~G,sun such contrnots v:ould how been void. And in the mce of K. T. Rawleigh Co. vs. Fish, (C.C.A. Xer;tlcnd),290 2. 2. 798, the Cowt, in conetruin~ b ooztract for the snle of hoods es not limitln~ olther territory, rccclo price, or requiring voadee to sell only vcndorfs coed:;,and thorcforo not viol.ntin:- our ttetc cnti-trust lavrb, a@n hplics that if tke oontrt~ot:v:d flxod the rcoale pricrr,it v;ouldhave boon in violetion of our entitrust lam. And in the onse of Y!.T.~Rwloigh Co. vc. lIarpar(Co+ nission 0r Ap>cnls), 17 u. Y. (Pd) 455, Ia0 Corx&.sion or hppoalo, ~~licr- t,?ls jury found tlmt the ar,raomnt xwde provldod t!mt i!llrgr we to dcvoto bin entfro tirnc,skill, OtC., to selling cooids

puro!mscd of the company by him, but t!mt lt did not:conttzglots or provldc that hlr:torritorj %s to be limltcd or that the rosalo price w R to be filed by tllo co:~pci:y

h&i that the oontrect did not violsto our Stnte entl-trust Inwe, but hem n&n the intimntion ie olonr that if the oontract had provided for tho fixing of the remlo ,7rlce,the coul’t would hove held it to bc Void.
Other autho~~ltloofrom thlc Et::t<! ml::htbe cltcd by us in cunrort or the proposition Fnvolvod, but to do 60 vmdld ut?I:uly

lo:I+!\cnthis o,in!Lon. Il:r:muzti-Jc annotatlonn unon the bubjoct ~111 bo fou!ldin 7 ,,.i..i:. 4d');19 f..L.T..

9;:s;:%? A.L.E. 1037; 103 A.t.l:.1331; 164 fr.L.R.1452; 106 A.L.P.. 1486; and 110 A.L.lc.1413.Won. V. Lee O'Dnniel, June 20, lBSrJ,P9ee 11.

That the iixmdintc effect of the coxbinotion or o~recwxt r&y bo to lo:.crprices h::o bwn held by o.zr courts not to vit:llix or rondar valid such a~;rot:;l.~nt.r?. In Ccn Antonio Gas 00. VG. State, 54 S. \i.%CI),it is oald:

*'%t doee not wttcr tklt tho ir&:lrrdinte recult of coxhitwtion x.yy be a rcductlon in the price os^co:xloditios. b dnnGerouo arbitrary poser hrs boon lodged in its bonds, by %hich the bualno&s of the country may be nbaolutoly domiriqted,

and prica arbitrarily controlled, re&¶rdlec~ of'tbc Iwo of tredo or the rules of eupplg and Gcmnd.,... The object of the stututcs la to tunrd the coll'.iorce nnd trade of the ctnta so that it my floz in ito rcCulnr ohannels, oub.ioctto the l..;v of supply and dcmsnd, and untrnxwled by tha oo::!binntionn ofman or oorporatlonswhich onn, nt will, control their OOUrGQ."
Uc ltive

been referred to the w~o'of Old Dearborn Dintributln!:

00. VI?,SeaC:rcwDietillcrs, 81 L. ed. 769, by the Supreme Court of thu United W.:ltcr:. Thnt onso involved only the validity of the Illinois Pair Trnde Act insorar as the Constitution of the United 3tatoc lo concerned. The fllinoi~ Sair Trsdc Act containad no cucb provision a5 is found in Section 7 Or 1:OUt.e Bill 231, hOW2 that authority has no bcwil;g ulronthe quontion on v:hichtho velidity of :!ousanil1 2.31irs turned. Eubxectione 1, 2 and 3 of Section 1 

### OrI:ousO Gill 231, quoted above, expressly oanction end.propose to mke valid and biudln& oontmctn 02 D chnrwcicr itmouncud an0 readercd null, void, end unenl'orcible by the proviuions of our State antf-truat laws, as oont~ln~d in Chaytor 3, Tit10 10 Penal Code ol'the State of Toxr, RJldTitle 125, Revised Civil Stetute3

### 0r TOxnr,1925. Thorurora, by virtue of the exg%ss provisions contninad in Nouse Bill fro.231, Section 1 of %une Dill FTo.231 is sutircilynull, void, and of no force and effect. Since the grovlcions contained in Poction 1 or 1Iowc Rlll.

Xo. 231 constitntc the bono ond sinez of the entire Act, nnd withoat such provisions tho rameindor of the Act bocono; mcanlw~:loco,it is np:lxrcntthrt the entire ,k0t nust 

### rdi.

Dy
. &&&g&A+ R. ';1. Fairchild Assiotent