The Montgomery advertiser., 1909-02-02
DECISION
rnusTs CANNOT COLLECT DEBTS
 THROUGH COURTS.
Base of Consinentaf wall Paper Com. psny Versus Lewis Weight &
 Sons Decided by II. s. Supreme Court.

Washington. Feb. 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 yoights Favor.
 The suit was brought by the com pany on a debt of s57,000. the payment pf which was resisted on the ground khat the paper company Is a trust. In bffect the decision holds that an ad- mitted trust. organized contrary to the Sherman antitrust law. cannot use khe court to collect debts.
 Justice Harlan's opinion deals In de- tail with various phases> of the case. It was based on the third defense of Weight that the company Is part of a krust. He started out with the propo-. hition that the Continental Company Is kwihin the prohibitions of the sherman hct, which, he said, is clear from the facts set forth in it's defense: He kheu went on to show that this corr poration is the representative of a combination which would have the ef- Acct not only of restraining, but Of monopoiizing the sale and manufac= Sure of paper. pany." he said. t.seeks in legal effect, ahe aid of the court to enforce a con- Itract for the sale and purchase of goods which. 1t is admitted by the de- murrer, was in fact. and was intended by the parties, to be based upon agree ments that wsre and are essential parts of an illegal scheme We state fhe matterNin his way because the plaintiff. by It's demurrer, admits, for the purposes of this case. the truth of all the facts alleged in the third de- kense."
 Further along. Justice Harlan said:
 The present suit Is not based upon lan implied contract of the defendant lcompany to pay for goods that 1t pur- agreements to which both the plaintiff and defendant were parties. pursuant 9o which Aha accounts sued on were made out aha which had for their ob- 5ect 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 d-uf the court in making effective the illegal agree ments that. constitute the forbidden combination. The question Is. whether fhe plaintiff company can have judg- menf for the amount of an account, which, it is admitted by demurrer, was snade up with the knowledge of both seller and buyer. with direct reference Ao and In execution Of certain agree- hlents, under which an illegal combi- nation, represented by the seller was organized" ]"
 Saying that Judgment in favor Of &he defendant company would give ef- feet to agreements consisting the H. legal combination, Justice Harlan said:
 We hold that such a judgment can- mot be granted without departing from 1he statutory rule, long establish ed en the jurisprudence of both tlils coun- try and England, that a court will not aend It's aid, in any way. to enforce pr to realize the fruits of an agree tments which appears to be tainted with Esllega1ify. although the result of ap- plying that rule may sometimes be to shield defendant who has got some fhing for which, as between man and bnan. he ought perhaps to pay--but hor which he is unwilling @o pay" In conclusion, Justice Harlan said:
 Upon the whole evidence, without Further citation of authority we ad- budse upon the admitted facts that khe combination represented by the blaintiK in this case was illegal under | J