In England a contract between employers for the purpose of protecting their interests against combinations of workmen, by which they agree to regulate wages and hours of work, or wholly or partially to suspend work for a time, as the majority may resolve, has been held in restraint of trade, as depriving each of the control of his own business, and therefore not enforceable.84 In Pennsylva-. nia, on the other hand, it has been held that where employes enter into a combination, which under the statutes of the state is lawful, to control by artificial means the supply of labor, preparatory to a demand for an advance in wages, a combination of employers to resist such artificial advance is lawful, since it is not made to lower the price of labor as regulated by supply and demand.65 So a contract between employers by which they agree not to employ any person who belongs to a certain labor organization or to any organization affiliating therewith has been declared valid.66 And a contract between an employer and a labor union, by which the employer agrees to employ for a certain period only members of the union, is not contrary to public policy.67
58 Reg. v. Rowlands, 17 Adol. & E. 671; Carew v. Rutherford, 106 Mass. 1, 8 Am. Rep. 287; State v. Stewart, 59 Vt. 273, 9 Atl. 559, 59 Am. Rep. 710; State v. Glidden, 55 Conn. 46, 8 Atl. S90, 3 Am. St. Rep. 23; Old Dominion S. S. Co. v. McKenna (C. C.) 30 Fed. 48. See "Contracts," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 116; Cent. Dig. §§ 542-552.
59 People v. Fisher, 14 Wend. (N. T.) 9, 28 Am. Dec..501; Rigby v. Connol, 14 Ch. Div. 482; Hornby v. Close, L. R. 2 Q. B. 153. See "Contracts," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 116; Cent. Dig. §§ 542-552.
60 Carew v. Rutherford, 106 Mass. 1, 8 Am. Rep. 287. See "Contracts," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 116; Cent. Dig. §§ 542-552.
61 Hornby v. Close, L. R. 2 Q. B. 153; Farrer v. Close, L. R. 4 Q. B. 602; Old Dominion S. S. Co. v. McKenna (C. C.) 30 Fed. 48. See "Contracts," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 116; Cent. Dig. §§ 542-552.
62 A provision in a contract between stevedores that unless the merchants in particular cases employ one of the contracting parties to whom, as between themselves, the business is assigned by the contract, none of them will accept the employment, is bad. Collins v. Locke, 4 App. Cas. 674. A contract between a brewers' association and a labor union, providing that no employe of the former shall work more than four weeks without becoming a member of the latter, is void. Curran v. Galen, 152 N. Y. 33, 46 N. E. 297, 37 L. R. A. 802, 57 Am. St. Rep. 496. A liverymen's association, which prohibits any member from doing business with any person who does not patronize its members exclusively, or from letting a hearse to a person for a funeral where the undertaker patronizes nonunion members, is illegal. Gatzow v. Buening, 106 Wis. 1, 81 N. W. 1003, 49 L. R. A. 475, 80 Am. St. Rep. 1. By-laws of a builders' association, which require members to pay to the association 6 per cent, on all contracts taken by them, and to submit all bids first to the association, and provide that the lowest bidder shall add 6 per cent. to his bid before it is submitted to the owner, are void. Milwaukee Masons' & Builders' Ass'n v. Niezerowski, 95 Wis. 129, 70 N. W. 166, 37 L. R. A. 127, 60 Am. St Rep. 97. To same effect, Bailey v. Association, 103 Tenn. 99, 52 S. W. 853, 46 L. R. A. 561. See "Contracts," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 116; Cent. Dig. §§ 542-552.
63Rohlf v. Kasemeier, 140 Iowa, 182, 118 N. W. 276, 23 L. R. A. (N. S.) 12S4, 132 Am. St Rep. 261, 17 Ann. Caa 750. See "Contracts," Deo. Dig, (Key-No.) § 116; Cent. Dig. §§ 542-552.