Gambar halaman
PDF
ePub

by act approved June 20, 1893. In force July 1, 1893. L. 1893, p. 91; Legal News Ed., p. 65. People v. Butler St. Foundry, 201 111. 236.

269j. Act, how enforced-Informer-Fines, to whom paid.) $ 8. It shall be the duty of the prosecuting attorneys in their respective jurisdiction, and the Attorney-General, to enforce the foregoing provisions of this act, and any prosecuting attorney of any county, securing a conviction under the provisions of this act, shall be entitled to such fee or salary as by law he is allowed for such prosecution. When there is a conviction under this act the informer shall be entitled to one-fifth of the fine recovered, which shall be paid 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.

Law in general as to.

The purchase by one corporation of a controlling interest in another corporation for the purpose of dissolving said latter company, and removing its competition with the first, is unlawful, and on proper showing an injunction will be granted to prevent the deal.

Dunbar v. A. T. & T. Co., 224 Ill. (9). A combination in restraint of trade is unlawful although a complete monopoly is not effected or contemplated.

Dunbar v. A. T. & T. Co., 224 III. (9). Contracts in restraint of trade, to be valid, must be reasonable as to time, place, etc., and must show intention simply to protect against unjust trade discriminations, and foster, rather than destroy, trade.

Southern Fire Brick Co. v. Sand Co., 223 Ill. 616.

What is not a contract in restraint of trade under the AntiTrust Statutes, State and Federal.

Southern Fire Brick Co. v. Sand Co., 223 111. 616.

Parties to an unlawful combination to injure the business of another will be liable for damages resulting from carrying out the agreement.

Purington v. Hinchcliff, 219 111. 159. An agreement between a brick manufacturers' association, a builders' association and a labor union not to use or handle brick made by a certain firm, who refuses to join the association, for the purpose of injuring the latter's business, is illegal, and parties to the agreement will be held liable for damage resulting

Purington v. Hinchcliff, 219 III. 159. Anti-Trust Act held to apply to trusts organized in Illinois only.

People v. Butler Street Foundry, 201 Ill. 236. Amendment of 1897 to Anti-Trust Act allowing combinalions that increase wages held unconstitutional.

People v. Butler Street Foundry, 201 I11. 236. Anti-Trust Act of 1891 was not repealed by the act of 1893, nor affected by the fact that act of 1895 was declared unconstitutional.

People v. Butler Street Foundry, 201 Ill. 236. Requiring corporation to file affidavit under Anti-Trust Act,

held proper.

People v. Butler Street Foundry, 201 Ill. 236. The affidavit required by the Anti-Trust Act is not unconstitutional as requiring evidence that would incriminate the affiant-immunity clause.

People v. Butler Street Foundry, 201 Ill. 236. Amendment of Anti-Trust Act exempting loan associations from filing affidavit, held valid.

People v. Butler Street Foundry, 201 III. 236. Persons aiding in the formation of an illegal trust monopoly are liable to fine. (Sec. 1, Trusts and Combines.)

Harding v. Amer. Glucose Co., 182 Ill. 551 (623-4).

Attempt to form a trust by transferring six factories to a third party and thence to a new corporation formed to purchase the six, giving stock in part payment, or paying all cash, held void. Full discussion of “trust" laws.

Harding v. Amer. Glucose Co., 182 Ill. 561 (637). Transfer of all the corporate property to a corporation organized to buy out all competing corporations, conditioned on the acquisition of all such properties, is void, as aiding the formation of a trust.

Harding v. Amer. Glucose Co., 182 Ill. 551 (588-614). That prices may be reduced by a trust monopoly in a product, does not make it less an illegal monopoly and combination.

Harding v. Amer. Glucose Co., 182 III. 551 (616). Evidence that the formation of a monopoly is intended may be by proof of verbal agreements or by acts of parties.

Harding v. Amer. Glucose Co., 182 Ill. 551 (616). Facts showing intention to form a monopoly by indirect combination.

Harding v. Amer. Glucose Co., 182 III. 551 (616). Monopoly contrary to trust statute—what is—contracts of, void-incorporation does not aid.

Distilling Co. v. People, 156 Ill. 448. Agreements, the effect of which is to establish a monopoly or restrain competition, are void.

Distilling Co. v. People, 156 Ill. 448 (486). The Anti-Trust Act of 1891 applied to corporations formed before its passage.

Ford v. Chicago Milk S. Ass'n, 155 Ill. 166 (180). A corporation formed for the purpose of creating a trust and destroying competition is illegal.

Ford v. Chicago Milk S. Ass'n, 155 Ill. 166 (180). Combination to regulate price of milk, held a trust and illegal—act of 1891, Trusts—agreement outlined.

Ford v. Chicago Milk S. Ass'n, 155 I11. 166 (179).

ULTRA VIRES.

GENERAL RULES AS TO.

What is and what is not-And as a defense.

General rules as to what is and what is not.

Converse v. Emerson & Co., 242 Ill. 619.

Midland Tel. Co. v. Nat. Tel. Co., 236 Ill. 476. Ultra vires cannot be raised as a defense to a contract, when the contract is within the corporate powers, but has been entered into without proper form or unauthorized official.

Wood v. Mystic Circle, 212 Ill. 532. Ultra vires held not a good defense where one corporation subscribed money to build a building for another corporation; the building being valuable to the subscribing corporation and the contract within its charter powers.

Merchants' Improvement Co. v. Exchange Co., 210 III. 26. Ultra vires may be pleaded to a contract by a street railway company to pave a public street. It has no power to do the paving

Farson v. Fogg, 205 Ill. 326 (340-1). Ultra vires—for loan association to borrow money and agree to pay interest, is.

Columbus Bldg. Ass'n v. Kriete, 192 III. 128. Corporations are not estopped at any time to plead ultra vires to a contract prohibited by statute or against public policy, even though fully performed.

Fritze v. Equitable B. & L. Society, 186 IlI. 183. A corporation is not estopped from pleading ultra vires to a contract it had no power to make.

Best Brewing Co. v. Klassen, 185 III. 37.

Ultra vires is not a good defense to a suit on a guaranty of notes given for property conveyed to an employe as an accommodation to the corporation to whom he later conveyed the property.

Lake St. "L" Co. v. Carmichael, 185 111. 348. What is not an ultra vires purchase of more real estate than is required—owner would not sell part.

Lake St. “L” Co. v. Carmichael, 185 III. 348. Ultra vires is no defense to a contract, the benefits of which have been received, and which is not void for want of power to make it.

Nat'l Home B. & L. Ass'n v. Home S. Bank, 181 III. 35. Ultra vires can always be raised to a contract the corporation has no power to make; although it has received benefits.

Nat'l Home B. & L. Ass'n v. Home S. Bank, 181 Ill. 35. Ultra vires cannot be made a defense to an ordinance contract by a street railway company or public service corporation, where it has accepted the ordinance and enjoyed its benefits.

People v. Suburban R. R. Co., 178 I11. 594 (607).

The building and owning of a city for its employes, about its factory, by a manufacturing company, is ultra vires.

People v. Pullman Car Co., 175 III. 125 (164). One ultra vires act acquiesced in is not authority for other ultra vires acts by a corporation.

People v. Pullman Car Co., 175 III. 125 (160). Ultra vires cannot be set up as defense to a contract, the benefits of which have been received by the defendant so pleading.

Eckman v. C. B. & Q. R. R. Co., 169 Ill. 313. Payment of salary to a director is not void, as ultra vires, but voidable at suit of a stockholder_when.

Brown v. DeYoung, 167 Ill. 549.

« SebelumnyaLanjutkan »