Six competing corporations engaged in the manufacture of sugar products agreed to transfer their stock and property to one corporation. In sustaining a suit by minority stockholders of one of the corporations to prevent the transfer of its property, the court held that the necessary consequence of such a combination was to control prices, limit production, and suppress competition in such a manner as to create a monopoly in violation of section 569. Harding v. American Glucose Co., 182 Ill. 551, 55 N. E. 577 (1899). In a suit for the purchase price of wall paper, the defendant set up that plaintiff, a Wisconsin corporation, controlling 90 percent of the paper products west of the Alleghenies, was organized as an unlawful combination (under sec. 569) to fix prices, and relied upon section 574 as a defense. The court held that since the alleged illegal combination was formed outside of Illinois, the defense could not be sustained, since the Antitrust Act of Illinois (secs. 569 et seq.) has no extraterritorial application. Chicago Wall Paper Mills v. General Paper Co., 147 Fed. 491 (C. C. A. 7th, 1906). A contract whereby defendant agreed to manufacture book matches for plaintiff for five years, and not to sell to plaintiff's customers, except to certain jobbers, was held valid and not in violation of section 569, because its intention and effect was not to destroy competition, but to increase the business of the parties. Match Corporation of America v. Acme Match Corporation, 285 Ill. App. 197, 1 N. E. (2d) 867 (1936). A corporation engaged in the business of manufacturing strawboard, leased its factory and agreed not to engage in the business within a radius of 100 miles of a town during the term of the lease. In an action to recover rent on the lease or for use and occupancy of the premises, it was shown that the officers of the corporation knew that the lease was made in furtherance of a plan of the lessee to stifle competition and enhance the prices of its products, and the court in dismissing the action held that, since such a plan was in violation of section 569, the lease was void and no recovery can be had under section 573. American Strawboard Co. v. Peoria Strawboard Co., 65 Ill. App. 502 (1896). A quarrying company conveyed a parcel of land to one not engaged in the quarrying business. The deed contained a covenant whereby the grantee was restricted from using the land for a quarry. In an action to enforce this covenant, the court held that since the grantee was never in competition with the grantor, and since there was a plentiful supply of stone in the surrounding area, the covenant was not unreasonably restrictive and not violative of section 596. Natural Products Co. v. Dolese & Shepard Co., 309 Ill. 230, 140 N. E. 840 (1923). An incorporated association of producers and shippers of milk entered into an agreement with each of its members to fix prices, guarantee payment, and sell through the association, or to other members, only. In dismissing an action by the corporation against a retail dealer, not a member, for the purchase price of milk, the court held that the corporation was a combination in violation of section 569, and that section 574 was properly pleaded as a defense. Ford v. Chicago Milk Shippers' Association, 155 Ill. 166, 39 N. E. 651 (1895). In an action to recover the purchase price of wallpaper, the defendant pleaded that plaintiff was a combination organized in violation of section 569, and relied upon section 574 as a defense. This plea failed, however, to allege that the sale in question was in furtherance of such combination or that the goods were sold at an unreasonable price caused such combination. The court held that the demurrer to the plea was properly sustained. Wiley & Drake v. National Wall Paper Co., 70 Ill. App. 543 (1897). Four corporations engaged in the business of manufacturing pies agreed to convey their respective interests in their businesses to a newly formed corporation for the purpose of preventing destructive practices in the trade. An action was brought by one of the four to cancel this agreement on the ground that it was in violation of section 569 and of the Corporation Act of 1919, section 7 (repealed L. 1933, p. 308, sec. 167), which provided that no corporation shall acquire, directly or indirectly, the whole or any part of the stock of another corporation, where the effect of such acquisition may be substantially to lessen competition. The court held that these two statutes should be construed in "pari materia." The combination is not in violation of these statutes as construed, since it was shown that there was no intent to fix, control or regulate prices, or the supply of raw materials and machinery used in the trade, and that the consolidation in fact did not lessen competition. Moody & Waters Co. v. Case-Moody Pie Corporation, 354 Ill. 82, 187 N. E. 813 (1933). Where a company had agreed to furnish all the necessary raw materials to a steel company, and the latter had agreed to sell the former all of its manufactured products, section 574 was held to be an invalid defense to a suit for the purchase price, since there was no evidence that the agreement was in furtherance of a combination in violation of section 569. Heimbuecher v. Goff, Horner & Co., 119 Ill. App. 373 (1905). See also Dickerman v. Northern Trust Co., 176 U. S. 181, 20 Sup. Ct. 311, 44 L. Ed. 423 (1900). In an action upon a contract for the purchase of corn sirup, it was held that the defendant could not rely on section 574 as a defense, since the contract was collateral to, and not in furtherance of, the alleged illegal combination. Corn Products Refining Co. v. The Oriental Candy Co., 168 Ill. App. 585 (1912). A violation of section 569, rendering a contract unenforceable, is not established by merely showing that the plaintiff "enjoyed" a monopoly of the manufacture of corn sirup in Illinois. Ibid. Equity will not grant the relief sought by a judgment creditor's bill where the bill is based upon a judgment obtained on a contract which was clearly shown to be in violation of section 569. Perry v. U. S. School Furniture Co., 232 Ill. 101, 83 N. E. 444 (1907). As to c. 38, Sec. 139. See Chicago W. & V. Coal Co. v. People, 214 Ill. 421, 73 N. E. 770 (1905). See also Sanford v. People, 121 Ill. App. 619 (1905). As to c. 38, Sec. 328. Equity will not aid the enforcement of an agreement to combine, when the intention of such an agreement was to hold wheat for sale only on mutual consent of parties, such an agreement being in violation of c. 38, sec. 328. Lane v. Leiter, 237 Fed. 149 (C. C. A. 7th, 1916). In a suit to recover excess amounts paid under a cornering agreement, the defendant cannot be compelled to testify that he was a party to such an agreement in violation of c. 38, sec. 328. Lawson v. Boyden, 160 Ill. 613, 43 N. E. 781 (1896). B. EXCEPTIONS TO THE GENERAL ANTITRUST LAWS Rev. Stat. (Smith-Hurd, 1939), c. 1211⁄2 Resale Price Maintenance Sections 188 to 191 validate contracts fixing the resale price of branded commodities. The statute is expressly inapplicable to horizontal contracts between producers, between wholesalers, or between retailers. Sec. 190. See Vol. State Price Control Legislation: Resale Price Maintenance. Rev. Stat. (Smith-Hurd, 1939), c. 38 Associations of Farmers Section 139 provides that associations of farmers or dairymen engaged in making collective sales for their members of the farm and dairy products of such members are not conspiracies. See General Antitrust Laws, supra, for text of sec. 5139. Rev. Stat. (Smith-Hurd, 1939), c. 32 Section 468 provides that agricultural cooperative associations organized under sections 440 to 472 or under any other law of this or any other state as a cooperative association, shall not be deemed a conspiracy or combination in restraint of trade, an illegal monopoly, or an attempt to lessen competition or fix prices arbitrarily. See Tying Contracts and Exclusive Dealing Arrangements, infra. See also Cooperatives in projected study. Cooperatives. Judicial Decisions The defendant was convicted under c. 38, sec. 139, for intimidating the employees of another. On appeal he alleged that c. 38, sec. 139, was in violation of the fourteenth amendment because of the provision which states that cooperative associations were not conspiracies in and of themselves. The court held that the defendant was not denied equal protection of the law by this section, since notwithstanding the provision purporting to exempt cooperatives, if the members of such cooperatives committed any of the acts enumerated in this section, they would be guilty of conspiracy even though the acts were associated with collective marketing. People v. Mangano, 354 Ill. 329, 188 N. E. 475 (1933). Fair Trade Act. In denying the contention that the Fair Trade Act of 1935 (c. 12112, sec. 188) constituted a discrimination in favor of owners of trade-marks and brand names, the court held that section 569 was never intended to interfere with protection given to the goodwill established by the use of trade-marks or brand names and held the Fair Trade Act valid. Joseph Triner Corporation v. McNeil, 363 Ill. 559, 2 N. E. 2d 929 (1936). See Vol. State Price Control Legislation. C. SPECIAL ANTITRUST LAWS 1. Special Industry Antitrust Acts CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS Railroads Const. (1870) art XI, sec. 11, provides that no railroad corporation shall consolidate its stock, property, or franchises with any other railroad corporation owning a parallel or competing line. STATUTORY PROVISIONS Rev. Stat. (Smith-Hurd, 1939), c. 114 Railroads Section 23 provides that no railroad corporation may consolidate its capital stock with another owning a parallel or competing line. Section 29a provides that no railroad may consolidate its stock, property, or franchises with any other railroad owning a parallel or competing line. Section 39 provides that when a railroad, located partly within and partly without the State, has been sold under a court order to two or more corporations of different states, such corporations may consolidate, provided no consolidation shall take place with any railroad owning a parallel or competing line. Section 46 provides that any railroad incorporated under the laws of this State or any adjoining State and operating connecting roads under lease, may purchase or sell the remaining interests of the lessors of such roads, provided that this shall not be construed as permitting such railroad company to purchase any parallel or competing line of railroad. Section 165 provides that no railroad corporation shall be permitted to purchase any railroad which is a parallel or competing line. Section 174 provides that a railroad corporation of this State may sell to a railroad corporation of another State, but that this shall not be construed to permit any railroad company to purchase any parallel or competing line of road in this State. Rev. Stat. (Smith-Hurd, 1939), c. 56% Section 87 provides that the Director of Agriculture may order foods held in cold storage to be removed therefrom before the end of the twelve-month period to which such storage is limited, when the continued storage is for the purpose of fictitiously increasing the price, is in pursuance of a contract to increase price fictitiously, to |