Decorah public opinion. (Decorah, Winneshiek County [Iowa]) 1895-1928, 1913-04-16
REEVES WINS CASE.
Supreme Court of Iowa Affirms De-
cision of Judge HobsOn i'm Case
Against Farmers Company.

Last Thursday the Supreme Court
handed down an opinion affirming
the decision of the lower court in the
case of Henry Reeves VS.. The Decor
ah Farmers Cooperative Society,
which will be of interest, not only to
farmers in Iowa who seek to combine
and form mutual societies, but to all
other persons in all lines of business
in the United States who seek to or
ganize mutual companies of this char
acter. The state papers have appear
ed with loaded headline notices of
the case. e. r. Acres, attorney for
Mr.. Reeves, has received a copy of
the opinion of the Supreme Court,
written by Judge Deemer, which is
lengthy one.
The facts pertaining to this case
are familiar to our readers. The farm
ers' society enacted a bylaw which
required all members selling their
hogs to a competitor to pay five cents
per hundred penalty to the society,
which it was claimed gave the society
an advantage over Henry Reeves to
the amount of twenty-five dollars per
car. Then the society in competition
with Henry Reeves bid on hogs be-
longing to farmers, who were not
members of the society. The Supreme
Court affirms Judge Hobson's action
in the matter completely and holds
that when he permanently enjoined
the defendants from forming the IL
legal combination against Henry
Reeves he was right in so doing"
The opinion of the court is lengthy
and we quote from only one of its
paragraphs: Rivalry is the life of
trade. The thrift and welfare of the
people depend upon it. Monopoly is
opposed to it all along the line. The
accumulation of wealth out of the
brow of sweat of honest toilers by
means of combination, is opposed TO
competing trade and enterprise. That
public policy that encourages fair
dealing, honest thrift and enterprise
among all the citizens of the COM
monwealth, and is opposed to mon
opolies and combinations, because
unfriendly TO such unfair dealing,
thrift and enterprise, declares all.
IN n IN txhn nhinnt i- RI do
stroy or impede free competition be-
tween the several lines OF business
engaged in, utterly void.
The combination or agreement,
whether or not in the particular inst
ance, is void. The vice is in the COM
bination or agreement. The practi-
cal evil effect of the combination on
ly demonstrates its character; but if
its object is to prevent and impede
fair competition in trade, and may,
in fact, have that tendency, it is void
as against public policy" The court
cites a chapter in the Iowa law re-
garding monopolies, and it further
says: Without reference to this
chapter, monopolies have always been
odious at common law and all con-
tracts, arrangements and agreements
in restraint of trade or of free COM
petition were void" Again the court
said: ITO our minds this was undue
restraint of competition or, as the
term is now understood, restraint OF
trade, and so long as competition is
regarded as the life of trade, all com
binations, contracts, arrangements OIL
agreements made to stifie it or which
may have that effect, are regarded
as unlawful"
The case was pioneer along the
line of monopolies of this kind anC
was the first case of its kind to be
decided by the courts where the cour
granted an injunction on the petition
of a competitor at the same market