Numerous agreements have been made, especially prior to 1900, by competing firms or corporations having for their object fixing prices, pooling profits, limiting output, controlling supply, or dividing territory, for the purpose either of limiting competition for business or of precluding the lowering of prices by means of competition. Such agreements have been almost universally held invalid because of their tendency to injure the public.37 Under the English law it is not clear that a contract v. American Publishers1 Assoc, 231 U. S. 222, 58 L. Ed. 192, 34 S. Ct. 84.

36 See supra, Sec. 1645, n. 7.

37Gibbs v. Consolidated Gas Co., 130 U. S. 396, 32 L. Ed. 979, 9 S. Ct. 553; American Biscuit Co. v. Klotz, 44 Fed. 721; Oliver v. Gilmore, 52 Fed. 562; Tuscaloosa Ice Mfg. Co. v. Williams, 127 Ala. 110, 28 So. 669, 50 L. R. A. 175, 85 Am. St. Rep. 125; Arnold v. Jones Cotton Co., 152 Ala. 501,44 So. 662,12 L. R. A. (N. S.) 150; Georgia Fruit Exch. v. Turnipseed, 9 Ala. App. 123, 62 So. 542; Santa Clara, etc., Lumber Co. v. Hayes, 76 Cal. 387, 18 Pac. 391; Pacific Factor Co. v. Adler, 90 Cal. 110, 27 Pac. 36, 25 Am. St. Rep. 102; Denver Jobbers1 Assoc, v. People, 21 Colo. App. 326, 122 Pac. 404; Craft v. Conoughby, 79 111. 346, 22 Am. Rep. 171; Chicago Gaslight & Coke Co. v. People's Gaslight & Coke Co., 121 111. 530, 13 N. E. 169, 2 Am. St. Rep. 124; People v. Chicago Gas Trust Co., 130 111. 268, 22 N. E. 798, 8 L. R. A. 497, 17 Am. St. Rep. 319; More v. Bennett, 140 III. 69, 29 N. E. 888, 15 L. R. A. 361, 33 Am. St. Rep. 216; Chapin v. Brown, 83 Iowa, 156, 48 N. W. 1074, 12 L. R. A. 428, 32 Am. St. Rep. 297; Ludo-wese v. Farmers' Mut. Coop. Co., 164 la. 197, 145 N. W. 475; Anderson v.

Jett, 89 Ky. 375, 12 S. W. 670, 6 L. R. A. 390; Clemons v. Meadows, 123 Ky. 178, 94 S. W. 13, 6 L. R. A. (N. S.) 847, 124 Am. St. Rep. 339; Merchants Ice, etc., Co. v. Rohrman, 138 Ky. 530, 128 S. W. 599, 30 L. R. A. (N. S.) 973, 137 Am. St. Rep. 390; Arctic Ice Co. v. Franklin, etc., Ice Co., 145 Ky. 32, 139 S. W. 1080; India Bagging Assoc, v. Koch, 14 La. Ann. 168; Webb Press Co. v. Bierce, 116 La. 905, 41 So. 203; Klingel's Pharmacy v. Sharp, 104 Md. 218, 64 Atl. 1029, 7 L. R. A. (N. S.) 976; Clark v. Needham 125 Mich. 84, 83 N. W. 1027, 51 L. R. A., 785, 84 Am. St. Rep. 559; State v. Nebraska Distilling Co., 29 Neb. 700, 46 N. W. 155; Arnot v. Pittston, etc., Coal Co., 68 N. Y. 558, 23 Am. Rep, 190; Cummings v. Union Blue Stone Co., 164 N. Y. 401, 58 N. E. 525, 52 L. R. A. 262, 79 Am. St. Rep. 655; People v. North River Sugar Refining Co., 54 Hun, 354, 7 N. Y. S. 406, 121 N. Y. 582, 24 N. E. 834, 9 L. R. A. 33; Pittsburg Carbon Co. v. McMillin, 23 Abbott N. C. 298, 6 N. Y. S. 433; Strait v. National Harrow Co. 18 N. Y. S. 224; Judd v. Harrington, 19 N. Y. S. 406; Shute v. Shute (N. C), 97 S. E. 392; Central Ohio Salt Co. v. Guthrie, 35 Oh. St. 666; Emery v. Ohio Candle Co. 47 Ohio St 320, 24 not unreasonable in view of the interests of the parties and intended for their own advantage, not for the injury of others, is ever invalid because in restraint of trade.88 Certainly the mere fact that the purpose of an agreement is to maintain prices or to suppress competition does not invalidate it.89 And agreements for the division of business,40 or of territory with a view of lessening competition,41 or for the maintenance of prices,42 have there been upheld. In the United States, however, such agreements are illegal whether they are proved in fact to be detrimental to the public or not. It is enough to render the agreement invalid if it is not ancillary to some permitted transaction and if it "in its necessary or contemplated operation upon the actions of the parties to it, tends to restrain their natural rivalry and competition." 43 The invalidity of such attempts to obtain by contract the advantages of monopoly having been clearly established, an attempt was next made to make consolidations first in the form of a trust,44 and later by creating a corporation which should control or purchase the business of various competitors. This final method whether it might have been effective at common law or not,45 falls

N. E. 660, 21 Am. St. Rep. 819; Morris Run Coal Co. v. Barclay Coal Co., 68 Pa. St. 173, 8 Am. Rep. 159; Neater v. Continental Brewing Co., 161 Pa. 473, 29 Atl. 102, 24 L. R. A. 247, 41 Am. St. Rep. 894; Crandall v. Scott (Tex. Civ. App), 161 S. W. 925; Slaughter v. Thacker Coal & Coke Co., 65 W. Va. 642, 47 S. E. 247, 65 L. R. A. 342, 104 Am. St. Rep. 1013; Charleston Natural Gas Co. v. Kanawha, Ac, Co., 58 W. Va. 22, 50 S. E. 876, 112 Am. St. Rep. 936; Pocahontas Coal Co. I?. Powhatan Coal Co., 60 W. Va. 508, 56 S. E. 264, 10 L. R. A. (N. S.) 268; 116 Am. St. Rep. 901; Manson v. Hunt, 82 Wash. 291, 144 Pac. 45; Fairbanks v. Leary, 40 Wis., 637.

Decisions involving the illegality of such agreements under local statutes are Grenada Lumber Co. v. Mississippi, 217 U. S. 433, 54 L. Ed. 826, 30 S. Ct. 535; Ford v. Chicago Milk Shippers. Assoc., 155 111. 166, 39 N. E. 651, 27 L, R. A. 298; Chicago, etc., Coal Co. v. People, 214 111. 421, 73 N. E. 770; Knight & Jillson Co. v. Miller, 172 Ind. 27, 87 N. E. 823; Reeves v. Dec-orah Farmers' Cooperative Soc, 160 la. 194, 140 N. W. 844, 44 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1104; State v. Wilson, 73 Kans. 334, 80 Pac. 639, 84 Pac. 737; Hunt v. Riverside Cooperative Club, 140 Mich. 538, 104 N. W. 40, 112 Am. St. Rep. 420; Retail Lumber Dealers' Assoc. v. State, 95 Miss. 337, 48 So. 1021, 35 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1054; Walsh v. Assoc. of Master Plumbers, 97 Mo. App. 280, 71 S. W. 455; State v. Firemen's Fund Ins. Co., 152 Mo. 1, 52 S. W. 595, 45 L. R. A. 363; State v. Arkansas Lumber Co., 260 Mo. 212, 169 S. W. 145; State v. Armour Packing Co., 265 Mo.

121,176 S. W. 382; Judd v. Harrington, 139 N. Y. 105, 34 N. E. 790; People v. Sheldon, 139 N. Y. 25l| 34 N. E. 785, 23 L. R. A. 221, 36 Am. St. Rep. 690; People v. Dwyer, 160 N. Y. App. Div. 542, 145 N. Y. S. 748; Bailey v. Master Plumbers, 103 Tenn. 99, 52 S. W. 853, 46 L. R. A. 561.

In a few cases agreements having an obvious purpose of the sort have been upheld at common law. Mogul Steamship Co. v. McGregor, [1892] A. C. 25; Dolph v. Troy Laundry Mach. Co., 28 Fed. 553 (before the Supreme Court, but question of damages only discussed, 138 U. S. 617, 34 L. Ed. 1083, 11 S. Ct. 412); California Steam Nav. Co. v. Wright, 6 Cal. 258, 65 Am. Dec. 511; Central Shade Roller Co. v. Cushman, 143 Mass. 353, 9 N. E. 629; Long v. Towl, 42 Mo. 545, 97 Am. Dec. 355; Skrainka v. Scharringhausenj 8 Mo. App. 523; Reed v. Saslaff, 78 N. J. L. 158, 73 Atl. 1044; Matthews v. Associated Press, 136 N. Y. 333, 32 N. E. 981, 32 Am. St. Rep. 741.

38 Attorney General v. Adelaide S. S. Co., [1913] A. C. 781.

39 In North Western Salt Co., Ltd., v. Electrolytic Alkali Co., [1914] A. C. 461, the plaintiff, a combination of salt manufacturers, entered into a contract with the defendant, a salt producer, not a member of the combination, the obvious purpose of the contract being to control supply and prices, but it was said (p. 469): " Unquestionably the combination in question was one the purpose of which was to regulate supply and keep up prices. But an ill regulated supply and unre-munerative prices may, in point of fact, be disadvantageous to the public.

Such a state of things may, if it is not controlled, drive manufacturers out of business, or lower wages, and so cause unemployment and labour disturbance. It must always be a question of circumstances whether a combination of manufacturers in a particular trade is an evil from a public point of view. The same thing is true of a supposed monopoly. In the present case there was no attempt to establish a real monopoly, for there might have been great competition from abroad or from other parts of these islands than the part which was the field of the agreement."

In Evans v. Heathcote, [1017] 2 K. B. 836, [1018] 1 K. B. 418, an agreement between manufacturers of cased tubes which provided for the restriction of a total output and a distribution of the permissible output among several members of an association was held invalid, but this was not because of injury to the public from monopoly but because the agreement was unreasonable with reference to the parties thereto since no means were provided for withdrawing from the agreement and the limitation imposed on the right of any member to enter into contracts were extremely drastic.

40 Collins v. Locke, L, R. 4, H. L. 674, an agreement between stevedores in Melbourne that they should be entitled to have the stevedoring of vessels arriving in future in the port in a certain order was upheld, and damages given for its breach.

41 Wickens v. Evans, 3 Y. & J. 318. 42 Shrewsbury, etc., Ry. Co. v.

London, etc., Ry. Co., 17 Q. B. 652; Jones v. North, L. R. 10 Eq. 426; Cade v. Daly, [1010] 1 Ir. Rep. 306. Cf. Urmston v. Whitelegg Bros., 63 L. T. 465.

43 Keene Syndicate v. Wichita Gas, etc., Co., 60 Kans. 284, 288, 76 Fac. 834, 67 L. R. A. 61, 105 Am. St. Rep. 164, citing: Atcheson v. Mallon, 43 N. Y. 147,3 Am. Rep. 678. See also cases supra, n. 32.

44 See People v. North River Sugar Refining Co., 121 N. Y. 582, 24 N. E. 834,0 L. R. A. 33,18 Am. St. Rep. 843.

45 In Richardson v. Buhl, 77 Mich. 632, 43 N. W. 1102, 6 L. R. A. 457, a corporation formed for monopoly was held illegal. See also Distilling, etc., Co. v. People, 156 111. 448,41 N. E. 188, within the ban of the Sherman law and other enactments if the purpose and effect of the combination is to produce a condition approaching monopoly.46 It is clear that wherever such a combination is illegal, a contract to form it is equally illegal.