Page:The Green Bag (1889–1914), Volume 23.pdf/352

 322

The Green Bag

interstate carrier to issue annual passes for life in consideration of a release of a claim for damages, though entered into

prior to the act of June 29, 1906. A similar result was reached in Chicago

Indianapolis 61’ Louisville Ry. Co. v. U. 5., 219 U. S. 486, decided at the same time. It was held in this case that advertising may not be accepted in payment for transportation without violating the provisions of the act of Feb. 4, 1887 (24 Stat. at L. 379, chap.

104, U. 5. Comp. Stat. 190], p. 3154), and the acts amendatory thereof; and

manufacture to be a monopoly ofsale

“With respect to contracts in resin-n of trade, the earlier doctrine of ti! common law hasbeen substantially mai

tied in adaptation to modern condition. But the public interest is still the ﬁrs: consideration. To sustain the ram: it must be found to be reasonable bu'i with respect to the public and to ti! is parties, fairly and necessary, that itin isthe limited circumstant: to of the particular case, for the protectz: of the covenantee." The Court cits: denfelt with naghten approval Guns in Nordenfelt 8the Ammunition words v- of .llaxim Lord 07- (A MH Xv‘C

also that a state statute authorizing such transactions must give way in so

far as conflicting with the provisions of

565, tween “But 6 agreements dealers, Eng. Rul.having Cas.combinations or 413), for their and 50k bf‘

the federal act. See “Commodities Clause." Monopolies. Sherman Anti-Trust La'w—— “Rule of Reason" — Undue Re straint of Trade— Court must be Guided by Established Law and Duty to Enforce Public Policy Embodied in the Statute.

U. S. For U. S. v. Standard Oil Go. see p. 279 _lnq -qmn mnz-o cn'x oﬂ-é'lis

supra.

purpose the destruction of oompetl'ii'l and the ﬁxing of prices, are injurioui to the public interest and void. The.‘ are not saved by the advantages whim

the participants expect to derive from the [Citations enhanced omitted] price The to the complainiillts Consume‘!

plan falls within the principle Whirl2 condemns contracts of this clasS-"

Contracts Giving Jllanufacturer Control

Mr. Justice Holmes, dissenting, said:

of Retail Price — Restraint of Trade. U. S. ' The question of the right of a manu facturer to control the price of his

"There is no statute covering the Case? there is no body of precedent that, by sion ineluctable to whichlogic, the court requires has come. the condu' The

article to the consumer was dealt with in Dr. Miles Medical Co. v. John D.

conclusion is reached by extending 3 certain conception of public policy [0

Park é‘ Sons Co., decided by the United States Supreme Court April 3 (L. ed. advance sheets, p. 376). The manufac turer sought to enjoin the Cincinnati

a new sphere.

ﬁrm from inducing dealers who had pro cured medicines from the manufacturer to sell to it in violation of a contract with the manufacturer and from selling

medicines procured in this way at "cut rates?’ Mr. Justice Hughes said that the medical company had made the

mistake of considering its monopoly of

On such matters we are

in perilous country. I think that at least it is safe to say that the H106t enlightened judicial policy is to let people manage their own business in

their own way, unless the ground for interference is very clear." Taxation. Federal Corporation Tax ’

Excise or Direct Tax — Taxation of 5141‘ A gencies. U. S. A far-reaching decision sustaining the federal corporation tax law was rendered