nations, on the ground of or for the reason that the answer, testimony, evidence, documentary or otherwise, required of him, may tend to criminate him, or subject him to a penalty or forfeiture; but no person shall be prosecuted or subjected to any penalty or forfeiture for or on account of any transaction, matter or thing concerning which he may answer, testify or produce evidence, documentary or otherwise, in obedience to any request under this chapter, or any subpoena, or either of them, in any case or proceeding, except that the charter of any corporation may be vacated and its corporate existence annulled, as herein before provided; and except further, that no person testifying in any case or proceeding aforesaid, shall be exempt from prosecution and punishment for perjury committed in so testifying.

§ 5. This act shall take effect and be in force from and after its passage and publication.

Approved April 27, 1897.

COMMON-LAW DECISIONS.

National Distilling Co. v. Cream City Importing Co.

86 Wis., 352. Statement.

August, 1893.

Defendant bought goods of plaintiff, who brings this suit to recover the price. Defendant pleads that plaintiff is a member of a combination formed to control all the liquors manufactured in the United States, and that the price of the purchased goods was affected by such combination; that, therefore, the contract for the purchase of the goods was void and plaintiff has no cause of action.

Opinion.

Assuming the plea to be true it is no defense, for the contract between plaintiff and defendant was perfectly legal and in no way in restraint of trade. Any contract between plaintiff and a trust combination is only collateral to the contract between plaintiff and defendant and could not affect its validity.

Plaintiff can recover.

Milwaukee Masons and Builders' Association v. Niezerowski.

95 Wis., 129. Statement.

January, 1897.

About six-sevenths of the mason contractors of Milwaukee, Wis., belonged to plaintiff association, which passed a private by-law that all bids for work by its members should be first made to the association and that six per cent should be added to the lowest bid and that the lowest bidder should give his note for this six per cent to the association; but if the bids were for repairs and building over, the one who did the original job should be awarded the work and all the others should bid over him to make the builder suppose there was competition. Defendant gave his note for the said six per cent, and it is now sued upon. He pleads illegality of consideration.

Opinion.

The six per cent scheme was in restraint of trade to so great an extent as to make it against public policy and illegal. No recovery can be had upon the note.

ENGLAND.

COMMON-LAW DECISIONS.

1 P. Wms., 181. Statement.

Mitchel v. Reynolds.

1711.

Reynolds assigned a lease of a bakery for five years to Mitchel, and agreed not to enter the bakery business in that parish during the said term; and if he did, to pay fifty pounds as damages. Reynolds did enter the business in that parish within five years, and this suit is brought to recover the fifty pounds. Reynolds claims the contract was void, it being in restraint of trade.

Opinion.

If a promise in restraint of trade is founded upon a good consideration, partial as to territory, and reasonable, it will be enforced, but not so if it is general, not to exercise a trade throughout the Kingdom, because it could be no benefit to either party.

Plaintiff can recover damages.

Mogul Steamship Co. v. McGregor, Gow & Co.

1892, Appeal Cases, 25.

Statement.

The defendants are firms and companies operating steam vessels, during the whole year, some on the Great River of China between Hankow and Shanghai and others between Shanghai and European ports. The plaintiffs send vessels to Hankow during the tea season to share the tea-carrying trade. Defendants combined to prevent plaintiffs and other outsiders fom obtaining a share of the trade. The means used were the sending of ships to compete with plaintiffs' ships; the lowering of freights; a rebate to those who dealt exclusively with them; the indemnifying other vessels that would compete with the plaintiffs; and the dismissal of agents who were acting for both plaintiffs and defendants.

Plaintiffs bring this suit to recover the damages they have sustained by reason of this combination.

Opinion.

Lord Halsbury delivered the principal opinion, and in it said:

"I am of opinion * that the whole matter comes around to the original proposition, whether a combination to trade, and to offer, in respect of prices discounts and other trade facilities, such terms as will win so large an amount of custom as to render it unprofitable for rival customers to pursue the same trade is unlawful, and I am clearly of opinion that it is not."

No action lies.

CANADA.

COMMON-LAW DECISION.

The Ontario Salt Co. v. The Merchants' Salt Co.

18 Grant's Ch. (Upper Canada), 540.

Statement.

1871.

Several incorporated companies and individuals, engaged in the manufacture and sale of salt, entered into an agreement, whereby the several parties combined under the name of the "Canadian Salt Association" for the purpose of carrying on the salt business. It was agreed that all salt manufactured by them should be sold through the trustees of the association, and that no salt should be sold otherwise. Opinion.

The court held that this agreement was not void as contrary to public policy; that it was not ultra vires of the incorporated companies, and that it would be enforced by an equity court.

263