CASES CRITICISED-Continued. Geishaker v. Pancoast, 12 Dick. Ch. Rep. 60. Nash v. Hall, 39 Atl. Rep. 374. Affirmed, Hall v. Nash... Hallenback v. Rogers, 12 Dick. Ch. Rep. 199. Affirmed, Hallenback v. Rogers. Lyon v. Clawson, 11 Dick. Ch. Rep. 642. Affirmed, Clawson v. Lyon New Jersey State Dental Society v. Dentacure Co., 12 Dick. Ch. Rep. 593. PAGE. 537 554 580 584 Affirmed, Dentacure Co. v. New Jersey State Dental Society...... 582 Pratt v. Roseland Railway Co., 5 Dick. Ch. Rep. 150. Reversed, Roseland Railway Co. v. Pratt......... 585 Rutherford, &c., Electric Co. v. Franklin Trust Co., 12 Dick. Ch. Affirmed, Rutherford, &c., Electric Co. v. Franklin Trust Co...... 584 Salter v. Ely, 11 Dick. Ch. Rep. 357. 507 533 545 Trenton Potteries Co. v. Oliphant, 11 Dick. Ch. Rep. 680. Reversed, Trenton Potteries Co. v. Oliphant.. In re Trenton Street Railway Co. Reversed, In re Trenton Street Railway Co............. Van Orden v. Van Orden. Affirmed, Van Orden v. Van Orden....................... Woodbury Heights Land Co. v. Loudenslager, 10 Dick. Ch. Rep. 78. CHATTELS-See FIXTURES, 1. COMMISSIONS-The expenses incident to the safekeeping of the securities of the estate are compensated by the commissions allowed the administrator. HARTSON v. ELDEN......... CONDONATION-See Divorce, 2. .......... 478 CONSTITUTION-1. The act (P. L. of 1896 ch. 167, amended by P. L. of 1897 ch. 117) entitled "An act to compel the determination of claims to estates in remainder in certain cases and to quiet the title to the same" is constitutional. HALEY v. GOODHEART.................. 2. In a suit to determine complainant's claim to an estate in remainder in his grandfather's estate and to quiet title thereto, the 368 CONSTITUTION-Continued. 3. 4. PAGE. question of his legitimacy arose.-Held, upon the facts established in this case that the relation between the father and mother of complainant was illicit, and that complainant could not maintain the suit. Id............. 368 In 1833 the municipal authorities of Burlington had no power to grant to the Camden and Amboy Railroad Company the right to construct and operate a steam railroad longitudinally through a street in the city. PENNSYLVANIA RAILROAD Co. v. BURLINGTON... 547 An act of the legislature passed in 1896, to ratify and confirm such a grant, would be, if operative for the laying of additional tracks, a special law "granting to the corporation the right to lay down railroad tracks," and therefore a violation of the constitutional interdict against such special laws. Id............ CONTRACT—1. One about to build contracted not to build any part of his front foundation wall any nearer the curb than was the foundation on an adjoining lot.—Held, that this did not prevent his building a bay window, and extending the upper story out beyond the foundation line. KNIGHT v. HALLINGER... 2. The adjoining lot owner having stood by without objection while the foundation was being extended for the bay window, and while the window and superstructure were being erected thereon, he was not entitled to a decree for its removal. Id........... 547 223 3. Both parties being at fault, costs were refused. Id . 4. 5. Where a written contract upon its face vests an absolute title, those who assert that the subject-matter passed not absolutely, but only by way of pledge, must carry the burden of proving their allegation. LANCE v. BONNELL When the holder of life insurance policies on the life of another, by a title absolute on its face, openly and notoriously asserts his exclusive ownership of the policies, in hostility to others who claim the holding to be only by way of pledge, and the holder and those representing him pay all the premiums both before and after the alleged redemption of the pledge, effect loans upon the policies, and accept others in their place, and the claimants or those under whom they claim, make no demand for the return of the policies, but suffer the payment of premiums, &c., to go on for seventeen years after the alleged redemption of the pledge, without question or suit to recover the policies, it is such laches on the part of the claimants that a court of equity will not enforce their claim to the moneys which may have come to be due on the policies. Id. 223 223 259 259 CONTRACT-Continued. 6. 7. 8. PAGE. The complainant made several contracts for the filling in of 489 Where in such case each disputant insists that a certain base On failure to carry the burden with such certainty that the CONTRACTS IN RESTRAINT OF TRADE-1. A letter 2. A contract that the vendor of a business and its good will will 489 507 CONTRACTS IN RESTRAINT OF TRADE-Continued. 3. 4. 5. 6. est. PAGE, Whether, considering the changed conditions of trade and business, such a contract should now be pronounced against public policy if the restraint contracted for is general, but so broad a restraint is reasonably necessary for the protection of the purchaser, quære. Id... 507 A contract of the vendors of a business and its good will bound them not to engage in the same business "within any state in the United States of America or within the District of Columbia, except in the State of Nevada and the Territory of Arizona, for the period of fifty years."-Held, that the description of the places within which the contract restrained the vendors is a divisible description, embracing not one whole area but several areas disjunctively described. The business which was the subject of the sale had never been carried on by the vendors in some of the areas covered by the description.—Held, further, that while the restraint contracted for in respect to such areas may be opposed to public policy and the contract to that extent may be unenforceable, the restraint contracted for in respect to areas within which the business had been carried on was reasonably required for the protection of the purchaser, and the contract to that extent is not in opposition to public policy and may be enforced. Id..................... 507 When the purchaser of a business and its good will is a corporation empowered by legislative grant to engage in carrying on such a business for the period of its corporate life, a contract by the vendor not to engage in competitive business for a period substantially coincident with the purchaser's corporate life is not unreasonable. Id........... - Eight manufacturers of sanitary pottery ware, who produced nearly all of that ware manufactured in this country, formed an association and agreed to regulate the price of such ware according to the vote of a majority of its members.-Held, that, assuming that such ware has become a commodity of so great importance to public health and comfort that the public has an interest in its manufacture and sale, such a combination is opposed to public policy as creating or tending to create a monopoly; contracts among independent and unconnected manufacturers looking to the control of the prices of their manufacture by limitation of production, by restriction on distribution or by express agreement, are opposed to public interest and unenforceable. Id. Simultaneously with the purchase of the business in question, the purchaser also acquired by purchase four other potteries. The five vendors had been engaged in the manufacture of sanitary pottery ware and were members of the association. The purchaser thus acqufred a majority of the members.-Held, that, although the simulta 507 507 CONTRACTS IN RESTRAINT OF TRADE-Continued. 7. 8. PAGE. neous purchases gave the purchaser the opportunity to control the action of the association and such may have been its purpose, the contracts of sale and purchase and the incidental contracts connected therewith are not rendered invalid thereby but may be enforced; the public interest will be protected by invalidating the agreement for the control of prices. Id. Each of the five vendors contracted with the purchaser not to engage in competitive business in terms substantially like those contained in respondents' contract, and thereby five of the principal plants for producing sanitary pottery ware became the property of one owner, and the previous owners were excluded from using their capital and business experience and knowledge in competition with the new owner-Held, that, although contracts to restrain and limit competition in the production of some commodity in the manufacture and sale of which the public have an interest are repugnant to public policy, a restraint or limit upon competition may result from contracts which the courts are bound to enforce. Thus, in the absence of legislative prohibition (if such could be imposed), courts would be obliged to recognize and enforce contracts for the purchase by an individual manufacturer of the business of his competitors, even to the last one, although such purchases tend to eliminate competition, and the last purchase would completely exclude it, at least for a time. Id.......... Under our liberal corporation laws, corporations may be formed to engage in and carry on almost every conceivable manufacture or trade. They are empowered to acquire property and the control of other corporations. Acts which corporations do under these broad legislative grants cannot be pronounced by the courts to be repugnant to public policy. The legislative grants of power fix the character and limit of public policy in that regard. A corporation thus empowered to engage in and carry on a certain manufacture may buy the business of its competitors, and courts cannot pronounce contracts for such permitted purchases invalid, although they tend to produce, and may temporarily produce, a monopoly of such manufacture. Id... 9. Contracts incidental to such permitted purchases, and reasonably required to protect the purchaser in the enjoyment of the business purchased, cannot be pronounced by the courts to be against public policy for the same reason. Id. CORPORATIONS—1. Corporations are authorized by statute to issue common and preferred stock, which provides that the holders of the latter shall be entitled to receive a fixed yearly dividend, to be expressed in the certificate. Pursuant to its certificate of incorporation, |