Page:Henry Osborn Taylor, A Treatise on the Law of Private Corporations (5th ed, 1905).djvu/298

 § 309'?.] THE LAW OF PRIVATE CORPORATIONS. [CHAP. VII. as well as in Illinois, that a corporation formed for the purpose of controlling within a city the prices of important commodi- ties like milk or coal, is formed for an illegal purpose, being contrary to public policy, which is to allow free competition : and it need not be shown that the prices were excessive. 1 § 309d. The term " trust " has continued in popular use to express the idea of a very large and wide reaching enterprise. But after the decisions in People v. North River Sugar Refin- ing Co. and State v. Standard Oil Co., and other cases men- tioned in the two last sections, corporation lawyers acquiesced in the view that "trusts' 1 were illegal and could not be sus- tained as a means of effecting corporate consolidation. In order, however, to bring about a like result in a legal manner, corporation lawyers, as it were, went back and resorted to the Trust), 77 Mich. 632; Cum tilings v. Union Blue Stone Co., 164 N. Y. 401; Cohen ». Berlin-Jones Co., 166 X. Y. 292; Trenton Potteries Co. o. Oli- phant, 56 N. J. Eq. 680. 1 People v. Milk Exchange, 145 N. Y. 267; People v. Sheldon, 139 N. Y. 251; Judd v. Harrington, ib. 105; Harrow Co. v. Bement, 21 N. Y. App. 290; Ford v. Chicago Milk Shippers' Ass'n, 155 111. 166; Dis- tilling Co. v. People, 156 111. 448. Compare Bishop v. American, etc., Co., 157 111. 284; U. S. V. Co. v. Schlegel, 143 N. Y. 537; Same v. Foehrenbach, 148 N. Y. 58. These decisions are rendered with more or less direct reference to statutes for- bidding monopolies. There are a number of cases in the Texas courts construing the Texas statute against trusts and combina- tions. A contract was held illegal, under this statute, whereby a coal company gave exclusive privileges to a liquor dealer on its premises, and agreed to pay its employes in time-checks redeemable weekly by him on his premises, he agreeing to pay the coal company as rent two- thirds of the profits of his saloon 278 business, and to make monthly re- turns. Texas & Pac. Coal Co. o, Lawson, 89 Tex. 394. See, also, Welch v. Mill Co., 89 Tex. 653; Gates v. Hooper, 90 Tex. 563; Brewing Co. v. Templeman, ib. 277; Fuqua v. Brewing Co., ib. 298; Insurance Co. ». State, 86 Tex. 250. Exclusive privileges granted by a city to lay water piping were held void. Bren- ham ». Water Co., 67 Tex. 542; Ed- wards Co. v. Jennings, 89 Tex. 618. But see Laredo v. Bridge Co., 30 U. S. App. 110. On the other hand, the Rhode Island court has declared that not all contracts in restraint of trade are void; and it upheld one where par- ties, including a corporation, pooled their oleomargarine plants, and agreed not to carry on a like busi- ness for five years. Oakdale Mfg. Co. v. Garst, 18 R. I. 484. Coin pare Williams v. Montgomery, 148 N. Y. 519. And it is held in California that a contract making a water com- pany the sole agent of a flume com- pany for the distribution of water in a city, is not illegal, as creating a monopoly. San Diego Water Co. v. Flume Co., 108 Cal. 549.