The Pensacola journal. (Pensacola, Fla.) 1898-1985, 1909-01-21

nopoly rendering the illegal portions
if not the entire contract unenforce-
able because contrary TO public policy
IS. To be unlawful a restraint OF
trade or a monopoly need not be COM
plete and need not amount to Grim
inal offense. The test is whether the
restraint or monopoly is injurious &c
the public.
IA If an agreement in a contract
is in effect illegal, limitations as TO
time, place or subjects, ana expressed
or implied provisions that the purpose
of the contract or the agreement is
lawful, are immateTial.
10 The inhabitants of q village
have a right TO protection from in
furious restraint of trade and mODop-
oily in useful commodities in the vii
LACE without reference to the OppOT-
tunitieS afforded for obtaining the
commodities in a nelghbOrinS town.
I6- Where d contract for the lease
of a StOrehOuSe formerly used as
cOmmissary by the owners of a saw
mill who employed large number OF
persons in q village, contains agree
mentS that the lessor, a corporation.
will relinquish its right to establish
and maintain a commissary Tor Its
employees, viii use its influence to in
duce the employees, lOggeTs and others
to purchase their supplies from the
leSSees. will issue to its employees
merchandise checks against their
wages directed exclusively TO the les
sees. to be redeemed by the lessor
through the leSseeS for cash at par
every thirty days if such issue IS not
Illegal and that the leSSees will e5-
tabIish a general store of feed, grain,
dry goods, drugs, etc, etc, and VIII
accept as cash the merchandise cou-
pons issued by the lessor, and will
pay the lessor every thirty days a
commission of five per cent on gross
sales, the necessary tendency of the
agreements under the conditions in
which the contract will operate is to
restrain trade and a monopoly to the
injury of at least a considerable pOr-
ton of the public affected by the
agreements. The agreements are
therefore contrary to public policy
and invalid, and will not be enforced
by the courts
Judgment affirmed
Maxwell & Reeves, for plaintiffs III
error.
Blount & Blount & Carter, for de-
PENDANT in error.
Nancy Z. Hobbs and J. w Hobbs, ap-
pelIants, VS. Joseph W. Frazier as
trustee in bankruptcy for the estate
of J. w. Hobbs. appellees. Hillsbor-
ouEh county. Whitfield, J.
l. 4 trustee in bankruptcy having
legal title with no beneficial interest
in undivided property and no duties
with reference to the undivided prop
eTty requiring partition for the bene-
fit of a cestui que trust is not in gen.
eraI such tenant in common as au-
thoriZes him to sue for partition
sta
contains no express authority to
trustee in bankruptcy to sue for parti-
ton of the property of the bankrupt.
the title to which is by the law vested
in the trustee in bankruptcy for the
purpose of paying the debts of the
bankrupt, and the nature of the trus-
tees power and duties does not neceS-
sarily make the right to sue for par
tition exist by implication. A sale OF
the bankTupt's interest may be made
without partition, and this may be
sufficient for debt paying purposes
>. The statutes of the state do not
contemplate that partition may be en-
forced except when required by the
demands or the interests of a bene-
fetal owner, or when shown to be
necessary TO protect the rights OF
those benefcially interested
f. Where a trustee in bankruptcy
sues for partition of property ana
merely alleges that ne lis DESTROYS of
obtaining partition and division OF
the said premises and It does not IN
anv way appear that partition IS es-
sentia! to the statutory duties OF such
trustee. or that the bankruptcy court
has authorized the proceeding, or that
it is necessary 10 fully protect the
rights of those interested in the es-
tate of the bankrupt, the right of the
trustee in bankruptcy TO sue for par
tition IS not apparent
Decree reversed.
G.. Is Wells, for appellants.
F n SimoutOn for appellee.