titled to one-fifth of the fine recovered, which shall be paid to him when the same is collected. All fines recovered under the provisions of this act shall be paid into the county treasury of the county in which the suit is tried, by the person collecting the same, in the manner now provided by law to be used for county purposes.

Approved June 11, 1891.

LAWS OF 1893, PAGE 182.

TRUSTS AND COMBINES.

AN ACT to define trusts and conspiracies against trade, declaring contracts in violation of the provisions of this act void, and making certain acts in violation thereof misdemeanors, and prescribing the punishment therefor and matters connected therewith

§ 1. Be it enacted by the People of the State of Illinois, represented in General Assembly, That a trust is a combination of capital, skill or acts by two or more persons, firms, corporations or associations of persons, or of two or more of them for either, any or all of the following purposes: First-To create or carry out restrictions in trade. Second-To limit or reduce the production, or increase or reduce the price of merchandise or commodities. Third-To prevent competition in manufacture, making, transportation, sale or purchase of merchandise, produce or commodities. Fourth-To fix at any standard or figure, whereby its price to the public shall be in any manner controlled or established, upon any 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 article or commodity shall be covered up and made to appear to be for the original vendor, for a like purpose or purposes, and to enable such original vendor or manufacturer to control the wholesale or retail price of any such article or commodity after the title to such article or commodity shall have passed from such vendor or manufacturer. Fifth-To make or enter into, or examine 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 article or commodity, or article of trade, use, merchandise, commerce or consumption below a common standard figure, or card, or

list price, or by which they shall agree in any manner to keep the price of such article, commodity or transportation at a fixed or graduated figure, or by which they shall in any manner establish or settle the price of any article or commodity or transportation between them or themselves and others to preclude a free and unrestricted 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 such article or commodity that its price might in any manner be affected.

§ 2. That any corporation holding a charter under the laws of this state which shall violate any of the provisions of this act shall thereby forfeit its charter and franchise, and its corporate existence shall cease and determine.

§ 3. For a violation of any of the provisions of this act by any corporation mentioned herein it shall be the duty of the attorney-general or prosecuting attorney, upon his own motion, to institute suit or quo warranto proceedings at any county in this state in which such corporation exists, does business, or may have a domicile, for the forfeiture of its charter rights and franchise, and the dissolution of its corporate existence.

§ 4. Every foreign corporation violating any of the provisions of this act is hereby denied the right and prohibited from doing any business within this state, and it shall be the duty of the attorney-general to enforce this provision by injunction or other proper proceedings in any county in which such foreign corporation does business, in the name of the state on his relation.

§ 5. Any violation of either or all of the provisions of section one of this act shall be and is hereby declared to be a conspiracy against trade, and a misdemeanor; and any person who may be or may become engaged in any such conspiracy or take part therein or aid or advise in its commission, or who shall, as principal, manager, director, agent, servant, or employee, or in any other capacity knowingly carry out any of the stipulations, purposes, prices, rates, orders thereunder or in pursuance thereof shall be punished by fine not less than two thousand dollars nor more than five thousand dollars.

§ 6. In any indictment or information for any offense named in this act it is sufficient to state the purposes and

effects of the trust or combination, and that the accused was a member of, acted with or in pursuance of it, without giving its name or description, or how or where it was created.

§ 7. In prosecutions under this act it shall be sufficient to prove that a trust or combination as defined herein exists, and that the defendant belonged to it or acted for or in connection with it, without proving all the members belonging to it, or proving or producing any article of agreement or any written instrument on which it may have been based, or that it was evidenced by any written instrument at all.

§ 8. That any contract or agreement in violation of the provisions of this act shall be absolutely void and not enforceable either in law or equity.

§ 9. The provisions of this act shall not apply to agricultural products or live stock while in the hands of the producer or raiser.

§ 10. Any purchaser of any article or commodity, from any person, firm, corporation or association of persons, or of two or more of them, transacting business contrary to any provision of the preceding sections of this act shall not be liable for the price or payment of such article or commodity and may plead this act as a defense to any suit for such price or payment.

Approved June 20, 1893.

CASES CONSTRUING STATUTES.

Ford et al. v. Chicago Milk Shippers' Association.

155 IU., 166.

STATUTE CONSTRUED.

1891.

§ 6. Any purchaser of any article or commodity from any individual, company or corporation transacting business contrary to any provision of the preceding sections of this act shall not be liable for the price or payment of such article or commodity, and may plead this act as a defense to any suit for such price or payment. (Laws of 1891, page 206.) Statement.

Defendant is a corporation having for its object the control of the milk business in Chicago. It made an agreement with all its members whereby they were not to sell milk in Chicago for less than the prices fixed by defendant. The plaintiff contracted with defendant in April for milk to be furnished

during the following summer. The following July the trust law went into effect and after that, under the contract made in April, milk was furnished plaintiff by defendant. For this milk plaintiff refused to pay. Defendant sued and plaintiff pleaded in defense violation of the trust law.

Opinion.

An agreement between a corporation and its stockholders is essentially like an agrement between a corporation and strangers; therefore this combination was unlawful.

Plaintiff was not bound to pay defendant for the milk until it was supplied and the milk was not supplied until after the law was passed; therefore the law did not impair the obligation of any contract, and is constitutional.

Defendant can not recover for the milk supplied.

The Distilling and Cattle Feeding Co. v. The People ex rel. M. T. Moloney, Attorney-General.

156 Ill., 448. Statement.

June, 1895.

A large number of manufacturers of distillery products combined, and placed their business in the hands of a board of trustees. The trustees later organized plaintiff corporation and managed it as its directors. The corporation was authorized by its charter to engage in the general distilling business in Illinois and elsewhere. The distillery property of its members was turned over to it, and it acquired control of substantially all the distillery business in this country. Quo warranto proceedings were instituted against it for abusing its franchise.

Opinion.

Held that the corporation was formed for an illegal purpose and that quo warranto proceedings were proper.

Levin v. Chicago Gas Light and Coke Co. et al.

64 Ill. App., 393. Statement.

1896.

Defendants are six gas companies which formed a trust by putting their property into the hands of a trustee. Plaintiff, a stockholder at the time of consolidation, turned over his stock to the trustee and received for it a trust certificate. He now seeks to set aside this arrangement on the ground that it was ultra vires.

Opinion.

The equity court refused relief because plaintiff himself had broken the law against trusts and therefore is estopped from complaining.

The People ex rel. William W. McIlhany v. The Chicago Live Stock Exchange.

170 Ill., 556. Statement.

December, 1897.

Defendant is a corporation formed for the purpose, as stated in its charter, of maintaining a commercial exchange; to promote uniformity in the customs of merchants; to settle disputes between its members; to facilitate the receiving and distributing live stock, and to guard against the sale of unhealthy meat. A by-law was adopted by the exchange that its members should be allowed to employ but a certain number of solicitors in each state; that no solicitors should be employed on commission, and that all solicitors should be members of the association. Quo warranto proceedings are sought to be instituted against the corporation to take away its charter, on the ground that it has gone beyond its corporate powers to the detriment of the public.

Opinion.

"By-laws of a corporation must always be reasonable, and for a corporate purpose, and always within its charter limits. They must always be subordinate to the constitution and general laws of the land. They must not infringe the policy of the state nor be hostile to public welfare. The by-law in this case is a restriction on trade and business. * * It is not required for corporate purposes, nor is it included in the certificate of incorporation. It is therefore unlawful, as this corporation had no right to exercise this power of enacting it under its franchise."

Quo warranto proceedings are held to be proper.

Harding et al. v. American Glucose Company et al.

55 N. E. Rep., 577.

Statement.

*

October 19, 1899.

In 1897 six competing companies in the manufacture of glucose and grape sugar made an arrangement whereby there was incorporated in New Jersey the Glucose Sugar Refining Company, to which the properties of the six companies were