buy all their liquors of defendants, or that they would not sell below a given price. Defendants are discharged.1 51 Fed., 213. Statement. In re Terrell. United States v. Greenhut et al. June 28, 1892. Defendants made an agreement with Massachusetts dealers that if they should purchase all their distilled spirits of defendants they would give such dealers a rebate. The dealers did not bind themselves to buy of no other manufacturer. Suit is brought against the defendants by the United States for violating the Trust Act. Opinion. The dealers were entirely free to buy from whom they chose and to sell at any price they pleased. "The statute does not prohibit the offering of special inducements to such purchasers as shall make all their purchases from a single concern, even though those inducements be so favorable as to accomplish their object." The defendants are released. 52 Fed., 646. Statement. United States v. Nelson et al. District Court, October 10, 1892. The defendants were separate dealers in lumber in numerous towns and cities in several states. September 7th, 1892, at Minneapolis, they agreed to, and did, raise the price of lumber 50 cents on a thousand feet in Wisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa, Illinois, and Missouri. indictment is brought against defendants charging these facts. Opinion. "Unless the agreement involves an absorption of the entire traffic in lumber, and is entered into for the purpose of obtain 'Several other members of the distilling company were arrested under indictments substantially like the one here considered and they were discharged in the same manner as the defendants in this case. The decisions are found in In re Greene, 52 Fed., 104, and In re Terrell, 51 Fed., 213. ing the entire control of it with the object of extortion, it is not objectionable to the statute." A demurrer to the indictment is sustained. 54 Fed., 40. Statement. Blindell et al. v. Hagan et al. Circuit Court, February 9, 1893. The complainants are owners of the steamship Violante, which they are using in the carrying trade between New Orleans and Liverpool. The defendants have combined to prevent complainants from obtaining a crew for the Violante. Complainants seek an injunction founded on the following provision of the Trust Act: "The several circuit courts of the United States are hereby invested with jurisdiction to prevent and restrain violations of this act; and it shall be the duty of the several district attorneys of the United States to institute proceedings in equity to prevent and restrain such violations." 26 St. at Large, 209. Opinion. * * * The Trust Act is not meant to allow an individual the right to an injunction. An injunction can only be granted when the United States is complainant.1 Injunction is refused under the Trust Act, but is granted on other grounds. 55 Fed., 605. United States v. Patterson et al. Circuit Court, February 28, 1893. This case decides as to the sufficiency of an indictment, holding part of it bad and the remainder good. Under the Trust Act of 1890 it is insufficient for an indictment to declare the crime in the words of the statute, but it must state the means whereby it is sought to monopolize the market; and it must state such a purpose to restrain trade as is implied in the common law term "contract in restraint of trade." The same point is decided in the same way in Pidcock v. Harrington et al., 64 Fed., 821, Greer Mills & Co. v. Stroller et al., 77 Fed., 1; Gulf, C. & S. F. Ry. Co. et al. v. Miami S. S. Co., 86 Fed., 407; and in Southern Indiana Exp. Co. v. the United States Exp. Co. et al., 88 Fed., 659. United States v. Workingmen's Amalgamated Council of New 54 Fed., 994. Statement. Circuit Court, March 25, 1893. In New Orleans a difference had sprung up between the warehousemen and their employees and the principal draymen and their subordinates. With the view and purpose to compel an acquiescence on the part of the employers in the demands of the employed all the members of the labor associations were made by their officers, who had authority under their various charters, to discontinue business, and one of these kinds of business was transporting goods which were being conveyed from state to state, and to and from foreign nations. By the intended effects of the doings of the defendants, goods in the commerce of the country could not be moved. These acts are sought to be enjoined. Opinion. If a combination affects interstate commerce, it falls within the Trust Act whether it be a combination of capital or labor. The said interference with interstate commerce is enjoined. 55 Fed., 149. Waterhouse et al v. Comer. Circuit Court, April 8, 1893. In considering an application of the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers the following section of their rules was declared to be in violation of the Trust Act of 1890: "That hereafter when an issue has been sustained by the grand chief and carried into effect by the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers it shall be recognized as a violation of the obligation if a member of the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers who may be employed on a railroad run in connection with, or adjacent to, said road to handle the property belonging to said road or system in any way that may benefit said company with which the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers are at issue until the grievances or issues of difference of any nature or kind have been amicably settled." Dueber Watch Case Manufacturing Co. v. E. Howard Watch and Clock Co. et al. 55 Fed., 851. Statement. Circuit Court, May 22, 1893. Defendants are sellers of watches and watch cases throughout the United States and Canada. Plaintiff is a manufacturer of watch cases, which it sells throughout the United States and foreign countries. In 1887, defendants agreed among themselves, and gave notice to plaintiff's customers, that they would sell no goods to anyone buying or selling plaintiff's goods. After the Trust Act was passed, in 1890, defendants renewed the agreement, and as a result plaintiff has been greatly damaged in its business. It sues to recover threefold the damages sustained. Opinion. It is a legal act, within the provisions of the law in question, for two or more traders to agree among themselves that they will not deal with those who purchase goods of another designated trader in the same business. A demurrer to the complaint is sustained. 64 Fed., 724. United States v. Debs et al. Circuit Court, December 14, 1894. Consideration of the Trust Act is unessential to the decision of this case, but the following points are decided: 1. That the Trust Act forbids combinations of labor in restraint of commerce as much as it does combinations of capital. 2. The granting of power to the circuit courts to prevent and restrain violations of the Trust Act is not an invasion of the right to trial by jury as the jurisdiction of equity will be deemed to be limited to such cases only as are of equitable cognizance. 156 U. S., 1. Statement. United States v. E. C. Knight Co. January 21, 1895. The American Sugar Refining Company, a New Jersey corporation, being in control of a large majority of the manufactories of refined sugar in the United States, purchased stock in four Philadelphia refineries, which gave it a practical monopoly of the sugar business throughout the United States. The United States brings a bill to have the purchases set aside as contrary to the Trust Act; and for other relief. Opinion. The Trust Act was passed concerning commerce among the states. Unless refining sugar is a part of interstate commerce, the Trust Act does not apply. "The regulation of commerce applies to the subjects of commerce and not to matters of internal police. Contracts to buy, sell, or exchange goods to be transported among the several states, the transportation and its instrumentalities, and articles bought, sold, or exchanged for the purposes of such transit among the states, or put in the way of transit, may be regulated, but this is because they form part of interstate trade or commerce. The fact that an article is manufactured for export to another state does not of itself make it an article of interstate commerce, and the intent of the manufacturer does not determine the time when the article of product passes from the control of the state and belongs to commerce." Some of the sugar refined is used within the state and some is sent out of the state; and this is true of the wheat, corn, cotton and cattle that are raised, and of nearly everything that is manufactured. To hold this a part of interstate commerce would give the United States, in the grant to regulate commerce among the states, control of nearly all the business in the states. It was never intended to give such power to the national government. It must be held that an article does not become a part of interstate commerce until it is started for another state; therefore, monopolies in the manufacture of a necessary of life are not covered by the Trust Act. "There was nothing in the proofs to indicate any intention to put a restraint upon trade or commerce, and the fact, as we have seen, that trade or commerce might be indirectly affected, was not enough to entitle complainants to a decree." The bill is dismissed. American Soda-Fountain Co. v. Green et al. 69 Fed., 333. Statement. June 4, 1895. In a suit for infringement of a patent relating to soda-water fountains, the answer alleged that complainant company was an illegal combination formed by a great number of manufac |