In United States v. Joint Traffic Association36 the doctrine of the Trans-Missouri Freight Association case was affirmed. In this case the constitutional power of Congress to prohibit all contracts in restraint of interstate trade, whether reasonable or unreasonable, was questioned, and the possible far-reaching effect of the act invalidating business contracts, partnership agreements, urged. As to this the court say that the formation of corporations simply for business or manufacturing purposes has never been regarded as contracts in restraint of trade, and that the same is true as to partnerships. " We are not aware," the opinion continues, u that it has ever been claimed that a lease or purchase by a farmer, manufacturer, or merchant of an additional farm, manufactory, or shop, or the withdrawal from business of any fanner, merchant, or manufacturer, restrained commerce or trade, within any legal definition of that term."37
34 166 U. S. 290; 17 Sup. Ct. Rep. 540; 41 L. ed. 1007.
35 Four justices dissented.
36 171 U. S. 505; 19 Sup. Ct. Rep. 25; 43 L. ed. 259.
37 It is to be observed, however, that in the Trans-Missouri Freight Association case, the technical legal definition of the phrase "restraint of trade" as used in the act of 1890 was repudiated.