§ 225. North Carolina.-"Perpetuities and monopolies are row Co. v. Bement, 21 App. D. 290; 47 N. Y. Suppl. 462 (1897); Rafferty v. Buffalo City Gas Co., 37 App. D. 618; 56 N. Y. Suppl. 288 (1899); People ex rel. Morse v. Nussbaum, 55 App. D. 245, 253; 67 N. Y. Suppl. 492, 497 (1900); reversing 32 Misc. 1; 66 N. Y. Suppl. 129 (1900). In Watson v. Harlem & N. Y. Navigation Co., 52 How. Pr. 348 (Supm. Ct. Sp. T., 1877), a statutory prohibition against "combining" of navigation companies, was held not limited to combination "as respects the commission of unlawful acts," but to prevent the creation or formation of monopolies, by the union or combination of such companies. In Straus v. American Publishers' Assoc., 177 N. Y. 473; 69 N. E. 1107; 64 L. R. A. 701; 101 Am. St. Rep. 819 (1904), where the court may have overlooked the general rule that no civil liability results from the existence of a mere restriction upon competition (see § 164), the act of 1899 (which makes no provision for civil liability to a mere individual) was held applicable to holding an action maintainable for what was in essence a boycott of a trade competitor (see § 34). See subsequent decisions i 92 App. D. 350; 86 N. Y. Suppl. 1091 (1904); 193 N. Y. 496; 86 N. E. 525 (1908); dissenting opinion in Park v. National Wholesale Druggists' Assoc., 175 N. Y. 1, 35; 67 N. E. 136, 148; 62 L. R. A. 632, 647; 96 Am. St. Rep. 578 (1903); Bobbs-Merrill Co. v. Straus, 139 Fed. 155, 168 (C. C. N. Y., 1905; involving same state of facts as in Straus v. American Publishers' Assoc.). As to application of act to boycott by employee, see People v. McFarlin, 43 Misc. 591; 89 N. Y. Suppl. 527 (Monroe County Ct., 1904). In Walsh v. Dwight, 40 App. D. 513; 58 N. Y. Suppl. 91 (1899), a provision of the former act of 1893 (substantially embodied in that of 1899) was held not to make invalid agreements between manufacturers and their customers by which the price to be paid by the latter was reduced in consideration of their agreeing not to sell for less than a certain price, and not to sell the goods of other manufacturers for less than that at which they agreed to sell the defendants' goods. The decision is, however, sustainable on the additional ground that no civil liability results merely from the existence of an illegal restriction upon competition. See § 164. By 2 of the act of 1899 the penalty is a fine not exceeding $5,000, or imprisonment not longer than one year, or both; in case of a corporation, only a fine. By § 3 provision is made for an action by the attorney-general to restrain the acts declared illegal; by §§ 47 for an examination for the purpose of obtaining testimony. See People v. American Ice Co., 54 Misc. 67; 105 N. Y. Suppl. 650 (Supm. Ct., Sp. T., 1907). In Matter of Davies, supra, the provisions of § 4 were sustained against the objection that they imposed other than judicial duties upon a judicial officer; also against the objection that they constituted an invasion of personal liberty as guaranteed by the constitution. contrary to the genius of a free State, and ought not to be allowed." " 38 § 226. North Dakota.—"Any corporation organized under The provision conferring on a referee power to take testimony was also here sustained. Here was reversed 55 App. D. 245; 67 N. Y. Suppl. 492 (1900), which reversed 32 Misc. 1; 66 N. Y. Suppl. 492 (1900). As to effect of provision of act of 1897 for examination of witnesses, see Matter of AttorneyGeneral, 22 App. D. 285; 47 N. Y. Suppl. 883 (1897). As to the prohibition in Penal Code, § 168, subd. 6, against a conspiracy "to commit any act injurious to trade or commerce," see Leonard v. Poole, 114 N. Y. 371; 21 N. E. 707; 4 L. R. A. 728; 11 Am. St. Rep. 667 (1889); People v. Sheldon, 139 N. Y. 251; 34 N. E. 785; 23 L. R. A. 221; 36 Am. St. Rep. 690 (1893); Cummings v. Union Blue Stone Co., 164 N. Y. 401; 58 N. E. 525; 52 L. R. A. 262; 79 Am. St. Rep. 655 (1900); dissenting opinion in Park v. National Wholesale Druggists' Assoc., 175 N. Y. 1, 35; 67 N. E. 136, 148; 62 L. R. A. 632, 647; 96 Am. St. Rep. 578 (1903); Kellogg v. Sowerby, 190 N. Y. 370; 83 N. E. 47 (1907); People v. McFarlin, 43 Misc. 591; 89 N. Y. Suppl. 527 (Monroe County Ct., 1904). In People v. Klaw, 55 Misc. 72; 106 N. Y. Suppl. 341 (N. Y. Co. Gen. Sess., 1907), subds. 5 and 6 were held inapplicable to agreements among those engaged in business of owning, controlling and leasing theaters, and producing plays and entertainments of the stage, and booking of contracts for production of plays. The incapacity of a corporation to conspire was, in People v. Duke, 19 Misc. 292; 44 N. Y. Suppl. 336 (N. Y. Co. Gen. Sess., 1897), held to furnish no obstacle to an indictment thereunder against its officers and agents. For prohibition of restriction upon competition in transportation between this country and Europe, see L. 1899, c. 727 (Birdseye's R. S., 2d ed., p. 3785). 38 Const., art. 1, § 31. For similar provisions, see under Ark. (§ 205); Md. (§ 216); Okla. (§ 228); S. D. (§ 230); Tenn. (§ 231); Tex. (§ 232); Wash. (§ 234); Wyom. (§ 236). In Thrift v. Elizabeth City, 122 N. C. 31; 30 S. E. 349; 44 L. R. A. 427 (1898), this provision was held applicable to a grant by a municipal corporation of exclusive privilege to construct and maintain water works. As to application to statute limiting practice of medicine and surgery, see State v. Biggs, 133 N. C. 729; 46 S. E. 401; 64 L. R. A. 139; 98 Am. St. Rep. 731 (1903); to provision for regulation of pilots, St. George v. Hardie, 147 N. C. 88; 60 S. E. 920 (1908). By Revisal (1905), § 3739, "if any person in any way violate any of the provisions of the law against trusts and monopolies, he shall be guilty of a misdemeanor." This seems taken from § 12 of L. 1901, c. 586, which act was probably unconstitutional for reasons stated in § 181, supra; see also under Ga. (§ 207); Ill. (§ 209); Ind. (§ 210); Mich. (§ 217); Mont. (§ 221); Neb. (§ 222); N. D. (§ 226); the laws of this State or any other State or country for transacting or conducting any kind of business in this State, or any partnership, association or individual, creating, entering into or becoming a member of, or a party to any pool, trust, agreement, contract, combination, confederation, or individual, to regulate or fix the price of any article of merchandise, commodity or property, or to fix or limit the amount or quantity of any article, property, merchandise or commodity to be manufactured, mined, produced, exchanged or sold in this State, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor." 39 "A pool or a trust is a combination of capital, skill or acts by two or more persons, corporations or associations of persons, or two or more of them for either, any or all of the following purposes: (1) To create or carry out restrictions in trade. (2) To limit or reduce the production, or increase or reduce the price of property, merchandise or commodities. (3) To fix at any standard or figure, whereby its price to the public shall be in any manner controlled or established, upon any property, article or commodity of merchandise, produce or manufacture intended for sale, use or consumption in this State; or to establish any pretended agency whereby the sale of any such property, article or commodity shall be covered up or made to appear to be for the original vendor, for a like purpose or purposes. (4) To make or enter into or carry out any contract, obligation or agreement of any kind or description by which they shall bind or have bound themselves not to sell, dispose of, or transport any property, commodity or article of trade, use, merchandise, commerce or consumption, below a common standard figure, or card price list, or by which they shall agree, in any manner to keep the price of such article, Tenn. (§ 231); Tex. (§ 232); Wis. (§ 235). For prohibition against pooling of railroad freight, see Revisal (1905), § 3762. 39 L. 1907, c. 259, § 1. For sim ilar provisions, see under Ala. (§ 204); Ark. (§ 205); Ill. (§ 209); Iowa (§ 211); Ky. (§ 213); Minn. (§ 218); Miss. (§ 219); Mo. (§ 220); S. C. (§ 229); Tex. (§ 232); Utah (§ 233). commodity or transportation at a fixed or graduated figure, or by which they shall in any manner establish or settle the price of any property, article or commodity or transportation between them or themselves and others to preclude a free and unre stricted competition among themselves or others in the sale or transportation of any such article or commodity, or by which they shall agree to pool, combine or unite any interest they may have in connection with the sale or transportation of any article or commodity, or by which they shall agree to pool, combine or unite any interest they may have in connection with the sale or transportation of any article or commodity that its price might be in any manner affected." § 227. Ohio.41 "9 40 40 L. 1907, c. 259, § 2. For similar provisions, see under Cal. (§ 206); Kan. (§ 212); Mich. (§ 217); Miss. (§ 219); Neb. (§ 222); Ohio (§ 227); S. D. (§ 230); Tex. (§ 232); Wis. (§ 235). By § 3 provision is made for a fine of not less than $100 or more than $5,000; by § 4 for a fine of not exceeding $2,000 or imprisonment for a year or both; by § 5 for forfeiture of the right of a corporation to do business. As to sufficiency of information or indictment, see § 6; of proof in prosecution, § 7. "Any contract or agreement in violation of the provisions of this chapter shall be absolutely void and not enforcible either in law or in equity." 8. "No purchaser of any property, article or other commodity from any individual, company, association of individuals or corporation transacting business contrary to ar provision of the preceding sections of this chapter, shall be liable for the price or payment of such property, article or commodity, and may plead this chapter as a defense in any suit for such price or payment.” § 9. For similar provisions, see under Ark. (§ 205); Ill. (§ 209); Iowa (§ 211); Ky. (§ 213); Mo. (§ 220); N. M. (§ 223). See also under Kan. (§ 212). As to taking testimony, see §§ 10, 11; injunction against disposing of assets, § 12. By Const., § 146, "any combination between individuals, corporations, associations or either, having for its object or effect, the controlling of the price of any product of the soil or any article of manufacture or commerce, or the cost of exchange or transportation, is prohibited and hereby declared unlawful and against public policy; and any and all franchises heretofore granted or extended, or that may hereafter be granted or extended in this State, whenever the owner or owners thereof violate this article shall be deemed annulled, and become void." For a similar provision, see under Utah (§ 233). 41 R. S., § 4427 (-1), seems substantially identical with Kan. G. § 228. Oklahoma.-"Every act, agreement, contract, or combination in the form of trust, or otherwise, or conspiracy in restraint of trade or commerce within this State, which is against S. (Dassler's Ed., 1905), § 4464; see also under Mich. (§ 217). Subds. 1-3, however, of § 4427 (-1) are as follows: "(1) To create or carry out restrictions in trade or commerce. (2) To limit or reduce the production, or increase or reduce the price of merchandise or any commodity. (3) To prevent competition in manufacturing, making, transportation, sale or purchase of merchandise, produce or any commodity." And subd. 5 contains no reference to contracts not to manufacture. §§ 4427 (-1) and the provisions following constitute the act of 1898, which was held constitutional in State v. Gage, 72 Ohio St. 210; 73 N. E. 1078 (1905), which reversed Gage v. State, 24 Ohio Cir. Ct. R. 724 (Del. C. C., 1903). It had also been held constitutional in State ex rel. Monnett v. Buckeye Pipe Line Co., 61 Ohio St. 520; 56 N. E. 464 (1900), SO far, at least, as applicable to the agreement there under consideration, characterized as "having no purpose whatever except to prevent competition in the production, transportation and refining of petroleum, to the end that there may be received from the consumers of its products higher prices than would prevail under the condition of open competition." Such an agreement was regarded as "hurtful to the public" so as to be within the power of the legislature to prohibit in the exercise of the police power, notwithstanding constitutional guaranties of the rights of liberty and property. In Fisher v. Flickinger Wheel Co., 28 Ohio Cir. Ct. R. 501 (1906), the act was applied to a combination among manufacturers of wood wheels for vehicles. In State v. Jacobs, 7 Ohio N. P. 261 (Cleveland Police Court, 1900?), a boycott apparently unaccompanied with acts of violence, was held unlawful as a violation of the prohibition against a combination "to create or carry out restrictions in trade or commerce.' See under Ind. (§ 210); Mo. (§ 220); S. C. (§ 229); Tex. (§ 232). In Kevil v. Standard Oil Co., 8 Ohio N. P. 311 (Cin. Super Ct., 1901), the prohibition of the act was held inapplicable to an agreement for exclusive employment, that is, one by which one engaged in business should abandon it and be employed by another, though it appeared that the proposed employer (the Standard Oil Company) was a member of the Standard Oil Trust by which was controlled "the entire oil business in the United States." As to covenant by lessee not to sell any beer except of the manufacture of the lessor, see Huebner-Toledo Breweries Co. v. Singlar, 28 Ohio Cir. Ct. R. 329 (1906). By § 4427 (—2) provision is made for forfeiture of the rights and for the dissolution of an offending corporation; so by § 4427 (-3) for depriving an offending foreign corporation of the right to do business. See as to proceedings against corporations, State ex rel. v. King Bridge Co., 28 Ohio Cir. Ct. R. 147 (1906). The penalty is a fine of not less than $50 or more than |