The Houston daily post. [volume] (Houston, Tex.) 1886-1903, 1899-05-08

reasonable restraint of truds
TO public policy" yves, ~
Company, As Am. Rep. 81 '''l
In Watson VS.. The Comn,n..
3iS, held that combination ~
steamboat companies. for ,t",'
mutual benefit or aecount NY
petition between them was
created a monopoly and so was r5
public policy and injurious 4 sole
In stanton vs. Allen. s r,ss,.
the court say that the asson,n,.
thus secured against internal a.s,
external encroachment. ana shl
having thrown their Concern ~
mon stock, to derive an inco,r.
ton to the number of shares Y
and not according to their mat.
tivity in business. and safe ass,ss
duction OF compensation that ws's.
wise follow mean Accommodating
want of skill and attention hs''
terest must necessarily sryss ~
loss, and accordingly the oomh,.
held TO be Illegal"
In Hooker VS.. Vanderwats,
$40. 1853. held that the obiect !, !,
bination is to destroy competi,,n.', Y
the parties to It; that comnss,,..
life of trade that whatever ~.
even reduces competition 10 NJ
furious II not fatal to it,, ana ~.
combination was criminal ~
under the statute, because In,Sss.]
trade and commerce. (People Y
IA Wend, 81
In Hoffman VS.. Brooks. II Wa.
Bulletin, 25s, $50. tire court sa'ae
agreements to prevent conneti,,..
The presumption is always apa,n.ss
lidlty of such agreements. and
where they incl'ide all those ~,
any other business in large clts !.
trict, are unlimited in duration NJ
manifestly Intended, by the s,,r,'sd
individual discretion. by the arbl,,,.J
ing of prices, or by any of the mrs2
which the hope 6 gain makes w.
genuity so fruitful, to stranele ~
ton outright and breed mononol,sI
law, while 1t may not punish. Win N
force them, II is moi N
that the prices fixed are extortio,,s'|
II Is enough that they are absolp,s|
moved beyond the operation Of eysr]
ural cause Of tiuctuation.
In Croft VS.. McConoughy. "a
$50, the court, speaking OF a comb,|
to control the price of grain says; N
as competition was free, the infr1
the public was safe. The laws q NJ
Connection with the rigor OF coppt,]
was all the guaranty the public rsa.1
but the secret combination creatsd h
contract destroyed all competitlcs
created a monopoly against wbla
public interest had no protection"
mo one can claim protection for N
elusive use of a trade mark which
practically give him a menopoly. Il.
he would, the public would be M
for competition would be DESTROYED
nal Company vs.. Clark, 13 Wall. 81
In People VS.. Stephens. II N III
the court says that Arrangement
combinations among those preparsd,
expecting to become bidders al auun
prevent competition are condemned VI
moral and against public policy
In Marsh VS.. Russell, 66 N. y. 81
association apparently was mere pu1
ship, but the court said that II, bow
the primary object of the firm was nl
vent competition, 1t might be contt
as against public policy. and that II \
be condemned By proof that II Wi
Of a conspiracy TO control prices q d
monopoly.
In Hartford, ETC.. Railroad Cprl
VS.. n. Y. and n. H. Railroad Compiz
Robt.. AS. the court CONDEMNED as q
an agreement by a railroad compa1I
to extend its line, saying that the 4
ment was intended to prevent al !
petition in travel; and such comy(
it was not lawful for the parties "
vent, or attempt to prevent. Z"
" In People vs.. Marx, 50 N, Y. 81
court declared formal statue NJ
stitutional and void. because 1t pfoka
an important branch of industry b.
sole reason that 1t competed with "
end might reduce the price Of an II
of food for the human race" lM]
In Alger VS.. Thacher, IS Pick, s.
ton, j., enumerates these among
grounds that invalidate contracts h
straint of trade; 4. They prevent co1
tition and enhance prices; 5, They a
the public TO ali the evils Of mon1
And this Is especially applichk
wealthy companies and large corpo1u
who have the means, unless restralx
law, to exclude rivalry, monopollsA'
ness and engross the market iHl
vs.. Palmer, las Mass, 1853; 0res'1
Winsor, 20 Wall, 81, SD
No man can claim protection fo'
exclusive use of a trade mark which y
practically give him a monopoly IN tn
of any goods other than those produee
If he could, the public Tou'
injured rather than protected, for e.
tition would be destroyed" GoqQ
Company vs.. Goodyear Company "
L. j.. % U. S. S. Ct.}
AN agreement to prevent compet1H
a public sale is void, as againA =
policy" brisbane VS.. Adams, > \
1921 ~
"A combination to advance The pl'
stocks by means OF fictitious dea'l!|
void, as against public policy" Y
moro VS.. Pore. 5 Hun. 2S5.)
An agreement not to run a comp
line OF steamboats, is illegal and ln''
Wright VS.. Rider, Sc CAL, 242
Property bought Of an opposition y
ship line, not with view TO emplcyi
n connection with the business u
road. but to withdraw it from uu2
thereby preventing competitions, IS y
horized by the charter" Morgan
Donovan, 5S Ala. 242.)
An agreement by one steauanlp
pany TO pay another so much 4 ~ y
long as the former Is suffered TO rn J
out opposition, is immoral and 10 !es.
4 trade" Murray VS.. VandefonA
Barb, 14i.)
Land may not be acquired by ~
to prevent interference py'
betting lines" (Railroad COMPANY
Wis, iS n. Y, 1877, 1859
1t is not competent for raiiroas
oany to grant to a single telegrdp'I:'J
,any the exclusive riAht of es'A,s
ines OF telegraph communication W.
light of way The purpose Of su1
raets is very plainly to cripple az ~.
'ent competition. and they are "
'oid, as being In restraint OF 49, ~,
ontrary TO public policy III
Jnion VS.. Railroad Company. lrs e
Reporter, 3; Western Union vs. V"f
= Federal Reporter. 10; Balts ets
'sny VS.. Company, "a Federal ~
is. Western Union VS.. Company Y