grain from any person, company or corporation not a member of such trust, pool, combination or association, or not doing business through the same or any of its members; or which has for any of its objects the prevention of any person, company, partnership, association or corporation not shipping grain through grain elevators, whether owned or operated by members of such trust, pool, combination or association, or not, from finding purchasers for their grain by boycotting or threatening to boycott such purchasers. § 2. That in any case, any person, company, partnership, association, corporation, trust, pool or combination of whatever name shall do, cause to be done, or permit to be done, any act, matter or thing in this act prohibited or declared to be unlawful, such person, partnership, company, association, corporation, trust, pool or combination shall be liable. to the person, partnership, company, association or corporation injured thereby for the full amount of damages sustained in consequence of any such violation of the provisions of this act, together with a reasonable attorney fee to be fixed by the court in every case of recovery to be taxed as part of the costs in the case; and the property of any person who may be a member of or interested in any such trust, pool, combination or association, violating the provisions of this act shall be liable for the full amount of such judgment and may be levied upon and sold to satisfy the same. § 3. Any person, partnership, company, association or corporation subject to the provisions of this act, or any trust, combination, pool or association, or any director, officer, receiver, trustee, employe, agent or person, acting for or employed by them, or either of them, who shall violate any of the provisions of section 1 of this act shall be declared to be guilty of a felony, and shall upon conviction thereof be fined in any sum not less than one thousand dollars and not exceeding two thousand dollars, and any person, officer, member, agent or employe of any trust, combination, pool or association violating the provisions of section 1 of this act, may in addition to the foregoing fine, be sentenced by the court to a period not exceeding six months to be served in the penitentiary of the state. That half of the fine so imposed shall go to the person or persons who furnish information and evidence on which a conviction shall be founded. § 4. Any person who may be aggrieved or injured by section 1 of this act may prosecute the violator in a crim inal action by his own attorney, without the intervention of the county attorney, and in case of conviction the court shall allow a reasonable attorney fee to be taxed as costs in the case. LAWS OF 1897, CHAP. 81. AN ACT to prevent combinations between fire insurance companies and providing penalties therefor. Be it enacted by the Legislature of the State of Nebraska: § 1. Any combination or agreement made or entered into by or between two or more fire insurance companies insuring property against casualties from the elements, transacting business within this state, or between the officers, agents, or employes of any such companies, relating to the rates to be charged for insurance, the amount of commissions to be allowed agents for procuring insurance, or the manner of transacting the business of fire insurance within this state, is hereby declared to be unlawful, and any such company, officer, or agent violating this provision shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and on conviction thereof, in any court having jurisdiction, shall pay a penalty of not less than one hundred dollars nor more than five hundred dollars for each offense, to be recovered for the use of the permanent school fund in the name of the state. § 2. The auditor of the state is hereby authorized to summons, and bring before him for examination under oath, any officer or employee of any fire insurance company transacting business within this state suspected of violating any of the provisions of this act; and on complaint in writing made to him by two or more residents of this state charging any such company under oath upon their knowledge or belief with violating the provisions of this act, said auditor shall summons and cause to be brought before him for examination under oath any officer or employee of said company; and if upon such examination, and the examination of any other witness or witnesses that may be produced and examined, the auditor shall determine that said company is guilty of a violation of any of the provisions of this act or if any officer shall fail to appear, or submit to an examination, after being duly summoned, he shall forthwith issue an order revoking the authority of such company to transact business within this state, and such company shall not thereafter be permitted to transact the business of fire insurance in this state at any time within one year from the time of such revocation. § 3. Either party may appeal from any decision of the auditor made in pursuance to this act to the district court of the county wherein such decision was made, within twenty days from the time of the rendition of such decision, by serving a written notice of such appeal on the opposite party and on the auditor of state, and filing with the clerk of said court a good and sufficient bond for the payment of all costs made on appeal in case the decision shall be affirmed. On such appeal the district court shall try the case de novo as equitable causes are tried on such evidence as may be produced by either party and may reverse, modify, or affirm the decision or order of the auditor. § 4. The statements and declarations made or testified to by any such officer or agent in the investigation before the auditor or upon the hearing and trial before the district court as provided for in sections 2 and 3 of this act, shall not be used against any person making the same in any criminal prosecution against him. in the manufacture or sale of any article of commerce or consumption * * or dealing in any natural product to with any other person enter into any contract * * * * * * * * engaged in the manufacturing, selling or dealing in the same * ** whereby a common price shall be fixed for any such product or whereby the manufacture or sale thereof shall be limited or the amount * of such product to be sold or manufactured shall be determined or whereby any one or more of the combining or contracting parties shall suspend or cease the sale or manufacture of such products." (Laws of 1889, Chap. 69.) Statement. Plaintiff sold defendant a village lot, providing in the deed that said lot should not be used for hotel purposes for two years. Defendant within two years used the lot for hotel purposes. Plaintiff brings suit for damages. Defendant claims that the restriction was in violation of the foregoing statute, and was therefore void. Opinion. "The act applies to persons 'engaged in the manufacture or sale of any article of commerce or consumption, or dealers in any natural product,' and prohibits them from entering into contracts, agreements, etc. The contract in this case, not to use the premises for hotel purposes is clearly not covered by the terms or meaning" of the statute above mentioned. Plaintiff can recover damages. NEW JERSEY. COMMON-LAW DECISIONS. John P. Stockton, Attorney-General of New Jersey, at the Relation of John R. Miller et al. v. The American Tobacco Co. et al. 55 N. J. Eq., 352. Statement. February, 1897. Five companies of New York, North Carolina and Virginia, were at one time, independently of each other, manufacturing and selling paper cigarettes. In 1889, under the laws of New Jersey they formed the American Tobacco Company, and its capital stock was to be $25,000,000. The five companies above mentioned turned their property over to this corporation and received its stock in payment therefor. The American Tobacco Company did no business in New Jersey except to sell its cigarettes there through jobbers under agreement that the jobbers should sell cigarettes for no other manufacturer. By this means the American Tobacco Company has monopolized ninety-five per cent of the paper cigarette business of the United States. Plaintiff seeks to enjoin the American Tobacco Company from doing business in a manner to restrict trade. Opinion. If the corporation was not legally formed, the proper remedy is not in equity, but at law to declare its charter void. If the corporation was legally formed, it has the same right to do business as an individual, and clearly an individual has the right to make any contract the defendant has made. The bill is dismissed. Trenton Potteries Co. v. Richard C. Oliphant et. al. 56 N. J. Eq., 680. 43 At. Rep., 723. Statement. March 19, 1898. July 7, 1899. Plaintiff, it is alleged, is a corporation formed for the purpose of buying enough of the manufactories of sanitary ware to control the market in this article. To this end it pur |