The Birmingham age-herald., 1909-02-02
JUSTICE HARLAN GIVES OPINION BASED UPON
 THE SHERMAN LAW
Suit Is That of Continental Wall Paper Company Against a Cincinnati Firm, the Payment of Which Was Resisted Through
 the Courts.

Washington, February 1.-The case of the Continental Wall Paper company vs Lewis Voight & Sons of Cincinnati was today decided by the supreme court of the United States in voight's favor. The suit was brought by the company on debt of S57OOO, the payment of which was resisted on the ground that the paper company is trust In effect the decision holds that an admitted trust organized contrary to the Sherman antitrust law cannot use the court to collect debts.
 Justice Harlans opinion dealt in detail with various phases of the ease. It was the company is part of a trust. He start ed out with the proposition that the Con tinental company is within the prohibi- tions of the Sherman act, which, he said, is clear from the facts set forth in it's defense. He then went on to show that this corporation is the representative of a combination which would have the ef- feet not only of restraining but of monop- olizing the sale and manufacture of paper.
 ''The Continental Wall Paper company" he said seeks in legal effect, the aid of the court to enforce a contract for the sale and purchase of goods which it is admitted by the demurrer was in fact, and was intended by the parties, to be based upon agreements that were and are es- IEential parts of an illegal scheme. We ] f4ate tlie natter in this way because the | lHaintiff, by it's demurrer, admits. for the purpose of this case, the truth of all the facts alleged in the third defense' Based Upon Agreements.
 Further along Justice Harlan said
 "The present suit is not based upon an implied contract of the defendant company to pay for goods that it pur- chased, but in fact is based upon the agreement to which both the plaintiff and defendant were parties pursuant to which the accounts sued on were made out and which had for their object, and which it is admitted had the effect to accomplish the illegal ends for which the Continental Wall Paper company was organized. If judgment be given for the plaintiff the result will be to give the aid of the court in making effective the illegal agreements that constitute the forbidden combination.
 lnc quOSIlOH IS MHcllltT lfle pldlnllII company can have judgment for the amount of an account which it is admit ted by demurrer was made up with the knowledge of both seller and buyer with direct reference to and in execution of certain agreements, under which an il- legal combination, represented by the sell Ter was organized"
 Saying that a judgment in favor of .rt,r ments constituting the illegal combina- ton, Justice Harlan said:
 ''We hold that such a judgment can not be granted without departing from the statutory rule, long established to jurisprudence of both this country and England, that a court will not lend it's aid, In any way, to enforce or to real ize the fruits of an agreement which appears to be tainted with illegality, all though the result of applying that rule may sometimes be to shield a defend ant who has got something for which as between man and man he ought per haps to pay-but for which he is un- willing to pay"
 Third Defense Sustained.
 In conclusion, Justice Harlai, said:
 Upon the whole evidence, without fur ther citation of authority, we adjourn ing upon the admitted facts that tine combination represented by the plaintiff in this case was illegal under the anti trust act of 1890, is to be taken as one intended, and which would have the ef- feet directly to restrain and monopolize trade among the several states and with foreign states and that the plaintiff can not have a judgment for the amount of the account sued in. because such judgment would in effect be in aid of the execution of a agreements constitut- ing that illegal combination. We, con- seuuently, hold that the circuit court of appeals properly sustained the third defense in the case and rightly dismiss sed the suit"
 The case was decided against the com pany by a majority of only one. Jus tice Holmes delivered a dissenting opin- ion and in doing so stated that Justices Brewer, White and Peckham concurred with him.
 Justice Holmes understood to show that the illegality of the general contract of Voight that the paper company taken by itself did not make any specific sale illegal and he contended that it does not matter as to the legality of the sales, whether a previous step was legal or mot