poration could not organize under the laws of this state, license shall be refused: Provided, That this act shall not be construed so as to permit any corporation violating the antitrust laws of this state to have license to transact business. § 3. There shall be paid to the state treasury a fee of $10 by each company procuring license for the issuance thereof. § 4. It shall be the duty of the attorney-general to enforce the provisions of this act.

Approved May 23, 1899.

CASES CONSTRUING STATUTES.

State ex rel. Crow, Attorney-General v. Ætna Insurance Co. et al. Same v. American Cent. Insurance Co.

51 S. W. Rep., 413.

Opinion.

December 13, 1898.

Section one of the anti-trust act of 1897, providing that any corporation doing business in Missouri which shall become a member of any combination to regulate the premium to be paid for insuring property shall be guilty of a conspiracy to defraud and subject to penalties prescribed, provided that companies may regulate the price of insurance in cities. which now have or may hereafter acquire 100,000 inhabitants, does not violate section three, article four of the state constitution, which provides that the general assembly shall not pass any local or special law granting to any corporation any special privilege, because the proviso excepts fire insurance companies in all cities of that class, and applies alike to all fire insurance companies doing business therein.

National Lead Co. v. S. E. Grote Paint-Store Co.

(Pamphlet.) Statement.

St. Louis Court of Appeals, May 2, 1899.

In 1891 there existed the National Lead Trust composed of corporations manufacturing between 50 and 75 per cent of all the white lead produced in the United States. Fearing the state and national anti-trust laws the plaintiff corporation was chartered under the laws of New Jersey to have a capital of $30,000,000, and power, "to purchase, acquire, hold, sell, exchange or otherwise dispose of all such stocks, bonds,

securities, and obligations of other companies or corporations as may be necessary or convenient for any or all the purposes of said company." As soon as plaintiff corporation was formed it purchased the property of the members of the National Lead Trust and paid therefor in its stocks.

From plaintiff's St. Louis branch, defendant purchased lead to the value of $1,791.23. For this plaintiff sued, and was met by the defense that plaintiff corporation was a combination in restraint of trade within the meaning of sections 1 and 2 of the Missouri trust act of 1891; and this being so, by section 5 of said act, defendant is not liable for the price of the goods. In the lower court evidence as to the organization of the National Lead Company was excluded as immaterial; and an appeal was taken to this court.

Opinion.

* *

*

"If * * * the preceding trust was an unlawful combination it must follow that the plaintiff corporation is equally amenable" to the trust acts, "if, as the record shows the fact to be, it actually engaged through the same methods and for identical objects in a similar business to that of the former trust, unless there is something in the mere fact of the plaintiff's corporate character which exempts it from the application of the law prohibiting combinations * * *to restrain trade. * * * The legislature referred to the corporation in its true essence as an association of perHence it must follow that if the stockholders and governing officers of the plaintiff corporation combined with each other to violate any of the provisions of the section under review through the instrumentality of their corporate entity, then the corporation composed by them was a party to such illegal combination. A combination which is illegal under the anti-trust law, can not be operated under the cloak of a corporation by its constituent members or governing bodies."

sons.

* * *

New trial granted.

* * *

State ex rel. Crow, Attorney-General v. Firemen's Fund Insurance

premium to be paid for insuring property

* *

shall be * * * guilty of a misdemeanor." The act provides that a corporation violating the law shall forfeit its right to do business in the state; that proof that an agent in the state of a foreign corporation has violated the act shall be prima facie proof that the company has; that the prosecuting attorney shall receive from $25 to $500 for his services. (L. 1891, p. 186 and amendments.)

Statement.

Defendants are 73 insurance companies whose agents formed a club and hired a secretary to whom all the policies were sent. They were by him examined, and, unless the premiums were according to W. J. Fetter's book of rates, they were returned; and unless they were then changed to correspond with the rate book certain penalties were inflicted by the club. Proceedings were instituted to forfeit the right of these companies to do business in the state on the ground that they had violated the trust law.

Opinion.

The arrangement constituted a combination to fix rates within the meaning of the trust law. The parts of the trust law involved in the decision of this case are constitutional. Whether the sections of the law making guilt of agents prima facie proof of the guilt of the companies, and whether in these cases the attorney shall receive an extra fee, are constitutional, is not discussed, for these sections are not invoked in this case. If they were unconstitutional, the result would be the same.

The 73 defendant insurance companies are ousted of all rights, privileges and franchises conferred by the laws of Missouri, and of their certificates to do business under the insurance laws of the state, and compelled to pay the costs of this proceeding.

252A-11

MONTANA.

CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISION.

ARTICLE XV.

§ 20. No incorporation, stock company, person or association of persons in the state of Montana, shall directly, or indirectly, combine or form what is known as a trust, or make any contract with any person, or persons, corporations, or stock company, foreign or domestic, through their stockholders, trustees, or in any manner whatever, for the purpose of fixing the price, or regulating the production of any article of commerce, or of the product of the soil, for consumption by the people. The legislative assembly shall pass laws for the enforcement thereof by adequate penalties to the extent, if necessary for that purpose, of the forfeiture of their property and franchises, and in case of foreign corporations prohibiting them from carrying on business in the state. [Adopted, August 17, 1889.]

STATUTE.

PENAL CODE.

CONSPIRACY.

§ 321. Every person, corporation, stock company or association of persons in this state who directly or indirectly, combine or form what is known as a trust, or make any contract with any person or persons, corporations or stock companies, foreign or domestic, through their stockholders, directors, officers, or in any manner whatever, for the purpose of fixing the price or regulating the production of any article of commerce, or the product of the soil for consumption by the people, or to create or carry out any restriction in trade, to limit productions, or increase or reduce the price of merchandise or commodities, or to prevent competition in merchandise or commodities, or to fix a standard or figure whereby the price of any article of merchandise, commerce or produce,

intended for sale, use or consumption, will be in any way controlled, or to create a monopoly of the manufacture, sale or transportation of any such article, or to enter into an obligation by which they shall bind others or themselves not to manufacture, sell, or transport any such article below a common standard or figure, or by which they agree to keep such article or transportation at a fixed or graduated figure, or by which they settle the price of such article so as to preclude unrestricted competition, is punishable by imprisonment in the state prison not exceeding five years, or by fine not exceeding ten thousand dollars, or both. Every corporation violating the provisions of this section, forfeits to the state all its property and franchises, and in case of a foreign corporation it is prohibited from carrying on business in the state.

§ 325. The provisions of this chapter do not apply to any arrangement, agreement or combination between laborers made with the object of lessening the number of hours of labor or increasing wages, nor to persons engaged in horticulture or agriculture, with a view of enhancing the price of their products.