The Houston daily post. [volume] (Houston, Tex.) 1886-1903, 1902-06-20
!. , Number of Plants of
Il Same Character.
|, IMPRESS COMPANY WON.

IN WV
Court Affirmed the Deer
's IN, Two Courts Which Had
',s, Passed on the Case.
June 19.--The supreme
i' .tsrmed the opinion of the
~ - me court of civil appeals
- compress and Warehouse
f'pp and the state lost It's con
q ruder the antitrust act of
~ sIolatlon of the law for one
y INV out competing concerns,
\ IA by the attorney general
aaI I',Isr suit. The suit was In
-, the law. as the right TO
MI. was waived by the State,
~. sought being the forfeiture
w The court decided the case
IN y, facts, inasmuch as the COM
IA we're purchased were in no
lrs as. according to the rules
ss saDs' Of the railroad commission
n Be stopped at the hrst COM
\ reached. o,..,. ,s
-. who rendered judgment
4. State. from which judgment
!, taken TO the Third court of
IN. which court affirmed the
n The trial court.
!. iss5, articles 1913, 1914 and
noted by the court with the
AT the State seeks to forfeit
I. n the defendant corporation
X. ,Seorporators combined to re,
" nv. - commerce, and procured
" siih intent to carry out that
l ~ attendants insist that the
Institutional. therefore void
M Mil not support the action
* charter. upon the same
w held that the antitrust law
institutional. aud there i5
s,.ssoce between the two laws as
", he decision Of this question.
hat our decision is correct (,
WI il NOT In contraventlon II the
M d the State nor OF the United
,,.bn mentions the Illinois case
S..lS.S by the United States SD.
~ and states that the United
,ss.rmo court held that statute
~, II Illinois in all essential par
~ same rs the act OF 1870 was
~ With the fourteenth amend
III constitution of the United
hsusa Il excepted agricultural
,,,d i've stock while in the hands
rdueer Of raiser. - We recoe-
uOsrior authority of the supreme
AZ United States upon this ques-
d obedience to it's decision we
M thst In so far as the law Of
M within the terms OF the Con-
4 Il is Invalid, 1T will not sup.
Axiom By the State to recover
h ior a violation of the law, nor
ylts between corporations and
BID support a defense based upon
hat the right of action origin
4 violation OF the antitrust law,
De extent that the statute Of
!, Is not embraced in the decision
Epsene court of the United States
tdhere to Our former decision,
b constitutional and valid, aud
sr!Orcible by the state"
ws.ers.Pierce oil company case,
question that is now before this
%n decided b. the supreme court
rated States. In that case the
xi 10 revoke the license of the
rly 10 do business in the State,
isr a reason that it violated the
X act Of 1852 The judgement OF
!, @1rt forfeited and revoked the
u the corporation TO do business
md the case was taken to the
court Of the United States upon
4 error The question was sharply
rpcu the specific objection that
PIE vas void because of the very
UPON which the court held the
Hitrte void In the Connolly case,
supreme court of the United
sd that under the law of 1881
v % do business in Texas might
" dtho1gh the statute should ht
ufcn the grounds claimed by the
~ which was cancelled in tho
aye. The Judgment Of the State
he former case could not have
'IM except by holding the statute
nNauonal, or If void as 10 the
y o. the penalty, IT. was valid
y It reserved the right of the
feEoSe the license because
Aation OF the antitrust law
% difference between that case
p,seht, We therefore hold that
l@5, tested by the decision
4ene court of tho United States,
rue extent that It. authorizes
y revoke the license of for
rsanoh. or TO forfeit the charter
gu corporation for acts done
''uloloden by the antitrust law
..ner expresses the purpose OF
suon In the very language of til,
eivfe u can not be said that
I ior which 1t was organized
~ 10 the charter furnish any
an Intention to violate tho
separation could lawfully dc
s,' 11pressed In the charter and
.Iy ouy all Of the congresses
;assed The right to forfeit tht
T sns upon the intent, and II
~ the State to establish ar
-'sut to justify the forfeiture
n. justice Brown delivered this
=, ~, @nsludes as follows:
h, ,ss, s that IL the three com
~ , y separate at Dallas
nv y Them might have reduced
MN expressing cotton. This 1,
-IsDsn V,naollity, that, under exist
artS cannot have weight In
l,loe Nv question Of intent. We arc
Nh mat there was no evidenc,
NV. w court could have entered ,
alnr,,Iags the charter of the de-