or between the people of this or of any other State or country, or which tends in any way or degree to limit, fix, control, maintain, or regulate the price of any article of trade, manufacture, or use bought and sold within the State, or which limits or tends to limit the production of any such article, or which prevents or limits competition in the purchase and sale thereof, or which tends or is designed so to do." 25 § 219. Mississippi.-"A trust and combine is a combination, to buy lambs in certain counties within a certain time. Bingham v. Brands, supra. So of a contract not to engage in business. Clark v. Needham, 120 Mich. 84; 83 N. W. 1027; 51 L. R. A. 785; 84 Am. St. Rep. 559 (1900). But held otherwise of an agreement by the purchaser of property not to compete in business with the vendor. Hitchcock v. Anthony, 83 Fed. 779; 28 C. C. A. 80 (6th C., 1897). As to restriction upon competition in insurance business, see Compiled Laws (1897), p. 1615. For prohibition of restriction relating to "the sale of any article of machinery, tools, implements, vehicles, or appliances designed to be used in any branch of productive industry," see L. 1905, c. 229. 25 R. L. (1905), § 5168. The penalty is a fine of not less than $500 or more than $5,000, or imprisonment for not less than three or more than five years. For similar provisions, see under Ala. (§ 204); Ark. (§ 205); Ill. (§ 209); Iowa (§ 211); Ky. (§ 213); Miss. (§ 219); Mo. (§ 220); N. D. (§ 226); S. C. (§ 229); Utah (§ 233). By § 5169 provision is made for the forfeiture of the rights of corporations violating the act, and for an injunction against transac tion of business by a corporation pending trial. As to former act of L. 1899, c. 359, see Ertz v. Produce Exchange Co., 82 Minn. 173; 84 N. W. 743; 51 L. R. A. 825; 83 Am. St. Rep. 419 (1901), where it was held to apply to a corporation composed of dealers in produce. In Espenson v. Koepke, 93 Minn. 278; 101 N. W. 168 (1904), this act was held inapplicable to an ordinary vendor's contract in restraint of trade. In State v. Northern Securities Co., 123 Fed. 692 (C. C. Minn., 1903), where was under consideration the same combination as in Northern Securities Co. v. U. S., 193 U. S. 197; 24 Supm. 436; 48 L. Ed. 679 (1904); see § 197), a different conclusion seems to have been reached under the act of 1899, which is like the Federal act. But see reversal in Minnesota v. Northern Securities Co., 194 U. S. 48; 24 Supm. 598; 48 L. Ed. 870 (1904). By Const., art. 4, § 35 "any combination of persons either as individuals or as members or officers of any corporation, to monopolize the markets for food products in this State, or to interfere with or restrict the freedom of such markets, is hereby declared to be a criminal conspiracy, and shall be punished in such manner as the legislature may provide." For prohibition against pooling among carriers, see R. L. (1905), § contract, understanding, or agreement, express or implied, between two or more persons, corporations, or firms, or associations of persons, or between one or more of either with one or more of the others (a) in restraint of trade; (b) to limit, increase or reduce the price of a commodity; (c) to limit, increase or reduce the production or output of a commodity; (d) intended to hinder competition in the production, importation, manufacture, transportation, sale or purchase of a commodity; (e) to engross or forestall a commodity; (f) to issue, own or hold the certificate of stock of any trust or combine; (g) to place the control, to any extent, of business or the products and earnings thereof, in the power of trustee, by whatever name called; (h) by which any other persons than themselves, their proper officers, agents and employees shall, or shall have the power to, dictate or control the management of business, or (i) to unite or pool interests in the importation, manufacture, production, transportation, or price of a commodity; and is inimical to the public welfare, unlawful and a criminal conspiracy." 26 L. 1907, c. 252, prohibits pooling in business of buying, selling, etc., grain. As to prohibition of L. 1907, c. 269, against discrimination between sections, communities, etc., for the purpose of creating a monopoly in the business of production, etc., of petroleum, see § 31. 26 Code (1906), § 5002, as amended by L. 1908, c. 119, § 1. For similar provisions, see under Cal. (§ 206); Kan. (§ 212); Mich. (§ 217); Neb. (§ 222); N. D. (§ 226); Ohio (§ 227); S. D. (§ 230); Tex. (§ 232); Wis. (§ 235). There follows a provision closely similar to Mo. K. S., § 8966 (L. 1907, p. 378; see § 220), though here the provision is applicable to any "pool, trust," etc., "whether the same is made in this State or elsewhere . . to reg. ulate or fix in this State, the price," etc. Insurance against damage by cyclone and tornado is also specified. For similar provisions, see under Ala. (§ 204); Ark. (§ 205); Ill. (§ 209); Iowa (§ 211); Ky. (§ 213); Minn. (§ 218); N. D. (§ 226); S. C. (§ 229); Utah (§ 233). It is also here provided that "any corporation, domestic or foreign, or individual, partnership, or association of persons whatsoever (j), who shall restrain, or attempt to restrain, the freedom of trade or production; (k) or who shall monopolize or attempt to monopolize, the production, control or sale of any commodity, or the prosecution, management or control of any kind, class or description of business; (1) or who shall engross or forestall, or attempt to engross or forestall, any commodity; (m) or who shall destroy, or attempt to destroy, com § 220. Missouri.-"Any person who shall create, enter into, become a member of, or participate in any pool, trust, agreement, combination, confederation or understanding with any person or petition in the manufacture or sale of a commodity, by selling or offering same for sale, at a price below the normal cost of production; (n) or who shall destroy, or attempt to destroy competition in the manufacture or sale of a commodity, by selling or offering the same for sale at a lower price at one place in this State than another, differences of freights and other necessary expenses of sale and delivery consid ered; (0) or who shall destroy or attempt to destroy competition by rendering any service or manipulating, handling or storing any commodity for a less price in one locality than in another, the differences in the necessary expenses of carrying on the business considered shall be deemed and held a trust and combine within the meaning and purpose of this act (and c. 145 of the Code of 1906)," and liable to pains, penalties, etc., accordingly. And it is declared "sufficient to make out a prima facie case of a violation of subd. 'n' hereof to show a sale or offer of sale of a commodity at a lower price at one place in this State than another"; or à violation of subd. 'o' to show a lower charge for the service therein mentioned, in one locality than another." Compare, under Ark. (§ 205); Ga. (§ 207); N. Y. (§ 224); Okla. (§ 228); S. C. (§ 229); Wis. (§ 235). As to constitutionality of former provision, see State v. Jackson Cotton Oil Co., 48 So. 300 (Supm. Ct. Miss., 1909). With reference to this act, it was said in Yazoo & M. V. R. Co. v. Searles, 85 Miss. 520, 540; 37 So. 939, 946; 68 L. R. A. 715, 725 (1905): "To vitiate a combination such as the statute condemns, it is essential to show that by its necessary operation it tends to restrain trade or commerce, or tends to create a monopoly in such trade or commerce, and to deprive the public of the advantages that flow from free competition. To vitiate the combination the effect must be detrimental to the interests of the public. We cannot convict the legislature of having intended to prohibit the very many and constantly increasing number of perfectly legitimate contracts or combinations to which the growth of business or the exigencies of commerce give rise, and which are constantly multiplied by new avenues, continually being opened by the thrift, progress and invention of this era of complex business enterprises." Accordingly it was held that the prohibition of the act did not apply to a so-called "car service association"; that (85 Miss. 560; 37 So. 954; 68 L. R. A. 733), it was not "inimical to the public welfare"; did not "infringe upon the rights of the individual or the general well-being of the State"; that it was not "an abandonment of corporate autonomy or a delegation of corporate functions"; that, on the contrary, "its form is lawful, its aim and purpose legitimate, and its effect beneficial to the public, in that its operation tends to stimulate competition in business and increase the benefits arising therefrom." In Kosciusko Oil Mill & Fer persons in restraint of trade or competition in the importation, transportation, manufacture, purchase or sale of any product or commodity in this State, or any article or thing bought or sold tilizer Co. v. Wilson Cotton Oil Co., 90 Miss. 551; 43 So. 435; 8 L. R. A. N. S. 1053 (1907), the act was applied to a contract to suppress competition in the purchase of cotton seed. This decision was applied in State v. Jackson Cotton Oil Co., supra. In Southern Electric Securities Co. v. State, 91 Miss. 195; 44 So. 785, 124 Am. St. Rep. 638 (1907), a corporation owning and operating street railroad, gas and electric light properties was held illegal as a trust or combination. By § 5003 "every contract or agreement to enter into or pursue any trust or combine, and every contract or agreement made by another with any trust and combine, or with any member of a trust and combine, for any purpose relative to the business of such trust and combine, is void, and cannot be enforced in any court." This was applied in Kosciusko Oil Mill & Fertilizer Co. v. Wilson, supra. By § 5004, for violation of the act, the penalty is a fine of not less than $200 or more than $5,000, each day of violation to be a separate offense. By § 5005 "no corporation shall directly or indirectly purchase or own the capital stock, or any part thereof, of any other corporation, nor directly or indirectly purchase, or in any manner acquire the franchise, plant or equipments of any other corporation, if such other corporation be engaged in the same kind of business and be a competitor therein." In case of violation, provision is made for the forfeiture by domestic corporation of its char ter, and by a foreign of its right to do business. In Woodberry v. McClurg, 78 Miss. 831; 29 So. 514 (1901), this was held to prohibit ownership by one corporation of stock in another "and that without any question of competition between them." See Southern Electric Securities Co. v. State, supra. See also, under S. C. (§ 229); Tex. (§ 232). By § 5007 provision is made for recovery of $500 and actual damages by any person injured or damaged by a trust or combine. "He may maintain his action therefor against one or more of the parties to the trust and combine, their attorneys, officers and agents, and that whether or not all parties to the trust and combine be known or whether or not the trust and combine were made or shall exist in this State. And in any suit under this section, proof by any party plaintiff that he has been compelled to pay more for any commodity, or to accept less for any commodity, or to pay more for any service rendered by any corporation exercising a public franchise, by reason of the unlawful act or agreement of the defendant trust, its officers, agents or attorneys, then he would have been compelled to give or accept, but for such unlawful act or agreement, shall be conclusive evidence of damage, and in every such case proof of an unlawful purpose or agreement to raise or lower price or cost shall be conclusive evidence that such price or cost was raised or lowered by reason of such purpose or agreement." For other provisions for recovery of damages, see whatsoever, shall be deemed and adjudged guilty of a conspiracy in restraint of trade." 27 So as to a pool, etc., "to regulate, control, or fix the price of any article of manufacture, mechanism, merchandise, commodity, convenience or repair, or any product of mining, or any article or thing whatsoever, of any class or kind bought and sold, or to maintain said price when so regulated or fixed"; so as to a pool, etc., "to fix or limit the amount or quantity of any article of manufacture, mechanism (merchandise), commodity, convenience, repair, any product of mining, or any article or thing whatsoever of any class or kind bought and sold." 28 And so are guilty under Cal. (§ 206); Kan. (§ 212); Mich. (§ 217); Mo. (§ 220); Neb. (§ 222); N. M. (§ 223); N. D. (§ 226); Ohio (§ 227); Okla. (§ 228); S. D. (§ 230); Tenn. (§ 231); Utah (§ 233); Wis. (§ 235). By §§ 5008, 5009 are prohibited combinations with reference to bidding for public works. As to proceedings for violation of anti-trust laws, see §§ 5010-25 (§ 5016 is amended by L. 1908, c. 204). As to liability of corporation for acts done on its behalf, see § 5015. By Const., art. 198, "the legislature shall enact laws to prevent all trusts, combinations, contracts and agreements inimical to the public welfare." See Yazoo & M. V. R. R. Co. v. Searles, 85 Miss. 520, 528; 37 So. 939, 942; 68 L. R. A. 715, 721 (1905); State v. Jackson Cotton Oil Co., 48 So. 300 (Supm. Ct. Miss., 1909). The prohibition of the anti-trust laws was held not to apply to a public contract for supply of school books. Johnson Publishing Co. v. Mills, 79 Miss. 543; 31 So. 101 (1902). For previous anti-trust provisions, see Code (1892), § 1007; c. 140 (see as amended by L. 1896, c. 89; L. 1898, c. 72). For application thereof, to a combination among fire insurance corporations, see American Fire Ins. Co. v. State, 75 Miss. 24; 2 So. 99 (1897). See also, as to such provisions, Barataria Canning Co. v. Joulian, 80 Miss. 555; 31 So. 961 (1902). In Houck v. Wright, 77 Miss. 476; 27 So. 616 (1899), held not to prohibit exclusive agency within specified territory for sale of goods. 27 R. S., § 8965 (L. 1907, p. 377). 28 R. S., § 8966 (L. 1907, p. 378; with provisions specially applicable to insurance against fire, lightning or storm). For similar provision, see under Ala. (§ 204); Ark. (§ 205); Ill. (§ 209); Iowa (§ 211); Ky. (§ 213); N. D. (§ 226); S. C. (§ 229); Utah (§ 233). As to former acts of 1889 and 1891, see Finck v. Schneider Granite Co., 187 Mo. 244; 86 S. W. 213; 106 Am. St. Rep. 452 (1905). As to objection to title of act of 1891, see State ex inf. Crow v. Firemen's Fund Ins. Co., 152 Mo. 1, 45; 52 S. W. 595, 608; 45 L. R. A. 363, 376 (1899). As to whether the corresponding former provision was unconstitutional because, of exemption therein as to insurance busi |