to become employed in the liquor business in the State after the termination of his employment and who afterward entered the employ of a competitor. The knowledge he had gained as bookkeeper involved no trade secrets, nor did he establish a personal following among the plaintiff's customers. Simms v. Burnette, 55 Fla. 702, 46 So. 90 (1908). Simms v. Patterson, 55 Fla. 707, 46 So. 91 (1908) (held similarly with regard to a salesman and shipping clerk in the same business). Covenants by drivers of laundry, ice, and towel service trucks, not to solicit or convey information regarding the employer's customers within a year following the termination of employment, have recently been held unenforceable upon the ground that the employer has no legally protected interest in good will which has been built up by reason of the employee's personal qualities. Love v. Miami Laundry Co., 118 Fla. 137, 160 So. 32 (1935); Nettles v. City Ice and Fuel Co., 118 Fla. 345, 160 So. 42 (1935); Lewis v. Kirkland, 118 Fla. 350, 160 So. 44 (1935); Wheeler v. Mickles, 118 Fla. 348, 160 So. 45 (1935); Drew Co. v. Sanford, 113 Fla. 279, 151 So. 545 (1933) (a per curiam decision discussed in full in Love v. Miami Laundry Co., supra; in this case the contract of employment was terminable upon a week's notice). III. TYING CONTRACTS AND EXCLUSIVE DEALING ARRANGEMENTS Comp. Gen. Laws Ann. (Skillman, 1927) Sections 7944 and 7948 provide that marketing contracts between an agricultural or horticultural nonprofit cooperative association and its members shall not be deemed to be trusts or be considered illegal or in restraint of trade or to have created a combination prohibited by section 7948. See General Antitrust Laws, supra. Comp. Gen. Laws Ann. (Skillman, Supp. 1936) Sections 6482 and 6489 provide that an agricultural cooperative marketing association organized under sections 6466 to 6494 or any similar association organized under any other law of this state or any other state, may enter into marketing contracts with its members requiring them to sell, for any period of time, all or any specified part of their agricultural products or specified commodities exclusively to or through the association or any agencies designated by the association, and that such contracts shall not be considered illegal or in unlawful restraint of trade, or part of a conspiracy or combination to accomplish an illegal purpose. See Exceptions to General Antitrust Laws, supra. See also Vol. Cooperatives in projected study. Comp. Gen. Laws Ann. (Skillman, 1927) as amended by Comp. Gen. Laws Ann. (Skillman, Supp. 1936) Sections 6509 and 6513 provide that an agricultural cooperative association organized under sections 6509 to 6515 (1) may enter into marketing contracts with its members requiring them to sell, for any period of time not over ten years, all or any specified part of their agricultural products exclusively to or through the association, and that such contracts shall not be considered illegal or in restraint of trade. See Exceptions to General Antitrust Laws, supra. See also Vol. Cooperatives in projected study. Comp. Gen. Laws Ann. (Skillman, Supp. 1938) Section 6508 (4) provides that no marketing contract between a cooperative association organized under sections 6508 (4) to 6508 (8) for the purpose of dealing in commercial sponges, and its members, shall be deemed illegal or in restraint of trade. See Exceptions to General Antitrust Laws, supra. See also Vol. Cooperatives in projected study. Judicial Decisions Exclusive Dealing Arrangements. A contract by a cooperative marketing association with a member, whereby the latter agrees to sell his products exclusively to the association, is valid. Lee v. Clearwater Growers' Assn., 93 Fla. 214, 111 So. 722 (1927). However, where such a contract is for a term of 5 years and binds the member to sell all his dairy products at a price which is below the cost of production and the member, in order to avoid irreparable loss, withdraws from the association and refuses to perform, a court of equity will not grant specific performance but will leave the association to its remedy in damages. Miami Home Milk Producers' Assn. v. La Course, 117 Fla. 345, 158 So. 117 (1934). In McQuaig v. Seaboard Oil Co., 96 Fla. 275, 118 So. 424 (1928), an oil company agreed to build and equip a filling station for a dealer and to sell him petroleum products at the lowest market price. The defendant was enjoined from violating his agreement to sell the company's products exclusively for a period of 10 years. While the furnishing of adequate telephone and telegraph facilities is one of the duties of a common carrier, a railroad is not a common carrier in its dealings with telegraph companies. In State ex rel. Postal Telegraph Cable Co. v. Wells, 96 Fla. 591, 118 So. 731 (1928), the Postal Telegraph Co. sought to have the State Railroad Commission order a railroad terminal company to extend to the petitioner terminal facilities for carrying on the telegraph business equal to those enjoyed by the Western Union Co. under an exclusive arrangement. A writ for mandamus to compel the commissioner to entertain this petition was denied, the court holding that the railroad terminal company was not acting as a common carrier subject to the jurisdiction of the commission. Thus, the railroad, if it so wishes, could favor one telegraph company over another. In a dictum the court stated that the exclusive arrangement did not create an illegal monopoly and was not in restraint of trade. An arrangement to issue merchandise checks against wages due, to be redeemed exclusively by a store company leasing from the employer, has been held invalid. See Stewart v. Stearns & Culver Lumber Co., 56 Fla. 570, 48 So. 19 (1908), General Antitrust Laws, supra. : GEORGIA 1. TRUSTS, COMBINATIONS, AND MONOPOLIES A. GENERAL ANTITRUST LAWS CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS Const. (1877) art. IV, sec. 2-2504 (6466), par. IV. Buying stock, etc., in other corporations; competition.-The General Assembly of this State shall have no power to authorize any corporation to buy shares, or stock, in any other corporation in this State, or elsewhere, or to make any contract, or agreement whatever, with any such corporation, which may have the effect, or be intended to have the effect, to defeat or lessen competition, or to encourage monopoly; and all such contracts and agreements shall be illegal and void. STATUTORY PROVISIONS Code Ann. (Park et al., 1936) Sec. 20-504. Contracts against public policy; illustrations.A contract which is against the policy of the law cannot be enforced; such are contracts tending to corrupt legislation or the judiciary, contracts in general restraint of trade, contracts to evade or oppose the revenue laws of another country, wagering contracts, contracts of maintenance or champerty. Sec. 26-7404. Forestalling, regrating, and engrossing.-Any person who shall commit the offenses known to the common law as forestalling, regrating, or engrossing shall be punished as for.a misdemeanor. 1. "Forestalling" is the buying or contracting for merchandise or victual coming to market, or dissuading persons from buying their goods or provisions there, or inducing them to raise their prices. 2. "Regrating" is the buying of corn or other dead victuals in any market and selling it again in the same market at an enhanced price. 3. "Engrossing" is the getting into one's possession, or buying up, large quantities of corn, or other dead victuals, with intent to sell them again. Acts 1863-4, p. 46; Stats. 5 and 6 Edward VI; 115 Ga. 429, 448 (41 S. E. 553). Judicial Decisions GENERAL ANTITRUST LAWS Application of the Common Law. Restraints on trade as to particular places and persons or for a limited time if founded upon a good and valuable consideration are valid; while general restraints on trade are universally prohibited. But the restriction in a conveyance of property that it should never be used for a tavern held not an illegal restraint on trade and valid. Holmes v. Martin, 10 Ga. 503 (1851). Purchase by one railroad of one-third of the stock of a competitor in order to control it and destroy competition between them is illegal. Central Railroad Co. et al. v. Collins et al., 40 Ga. 582 (1869). Constitutionality of Statute. The Antitrust Act of December 23, 1896 (Acts 1896, p. 68), violates the fourteenth amendment to the Federal Constitution by denying the equal protection of the laws since it exempts "agricultural products or livestock while in the possession of the producer or raiser." Brown & Allen et al. v. Jacobs' Pharmacy Co., 115 Ga. 429, 41 S. E. 553 (1902). The C Railroad could not purchase control of a railroad running parallel with its main line connecting the same terminal points without violating Const. art. IV, sec. 2, par. 4. Langdon et al. v. Branch et al., 37 Fed. 449 (1888). See also Hamilton et al. v. Savannah F. & W. R. Co. et al., 49 Fed. 412 (1892). Where the president of a trust company was attempting to bring about a common control of the C Railroad and two competitors, the trust company would not be allowed to vote the stock of the railroad since that would violate Const. art. IV, sec. 2, par. 4. Foreign corporations would be similarly prohibited. Clarke v. Central Railroad and Banking Co. of Georgia et al., 50 Fed. 338 (1892). See also Georgia Granite R. R. Co. v. Miller, 144 Ga. 665, 87 S. E. 897 (1916). In considering whether or not a railroad has lessened competition, the results in their entirety must be looked to, including the effect upon the general public. The fact that competition was decreased at a few points will not alone make a railroad combination unlawful. |