making investigation and after proper notice and hearing. The Commissioner was justified in refusing the license because the licensee's lessors were interested in the sale of certain brands of liquor and the purchasing arrangements provided for in the lease were in violation of section 3200-27. State ex rel. Minnehaha Liquor Store, Inc. v. Arundel, 200 Minn. 305, 273 N. W. 817 (1937).

Exclusive Dealing Arrangements.

A gas company entered into an arrangement with a coal company whereby it agreed to sell and deliver to the coal company all of its accumulations of coke and agreed not to sell coke to any other person or company. The contract was upheld. A distinction was drawn between a corporation entering into a combination to dispose of all of its products to another for the purpose of enabling it to fix prices and control the market, and one, situated as the defendant in this case, dealing incidentally with one of its by-products. That the gas company is a public-service corporation was held unimportant. State ex rel. Berryhill v. St. Paul Gaslight Co., 92 Minn. 467, 100 N. W. 216 (1904).

A contract between a brewing corporation and a corporation engaged in supplying manufacturer premium catalogues which stipulated that the premium catalogue corporation would not sell such catalogues to certain other competitors of the brewing corporation within a given trade area is valid. John Newton Porter Co. v. Kiewel Brewing Co., 137 Minn. 81, 162 N. W. 887 (1917).

Equitable relief by injunction was allowed to prevent the breach of an exclusive marketing contract between a cooperative marketing association and a member thereof. An injunction preventing the members of the association from selling to others was necessary to preserve the nature and existence of the association. The restraining order was granted even though the contract provided for liquidated damages in the case of breach. Minnesota Wheat Growers' Cooperative Marketing Ass'n v. Huggins, 162 Minn. 471, 203 N. W. 420 (1925).

A manufacturer entered into an agreement with several dealers to cease to solicit contract work in Duluth and to sell its goods to no other contractor or dealer in that city except to those with whom the agreement was made. The agreement also provided that when jobs came to the manufacturer without solicitation one-third of the profits would be paid to the dealers. The dealers agreed to buy 50 percent of their total joint necessities from the manufacturer. The court held

that although the agreement was technically in violation of section 10463, the antitrust statutes should be construed in light of reason. This contract appeared to be a reasonable arrangement between the dealers and the manufacturer to sell exclusively the products of the manufacturer within a certain territory and was therefore valid. Pittsburgh Plate Glass Co. v. Paine & Nixon Co., 182 Minn. 159, 234 N. W. 453 (1930).

MISSISSIPPI

I. TRUSTS, COMBINATIONS, AND MONOPOLIES

A. GENERAL ANTITRUST LAWS

CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS

Const. (1890) art. VII, sec. 198. The legislature shall enact laws to prevent all trusts, combinations, contracts, and agreements inimical to the public welfare.

STATUTORY PROVISIONS

Code Ann. (1930)

Sec. 3436. Trust and combine-Defined.-A trust or combine is a combination, contract, understanding, or agreement, expressed or implied, between two or more persons, corporations, or firms, or association of persons or between any one or more of either with one or more of the others, when inimical to public welfare and the effect of which would be:

(a) To restrain trade;

(b) To limit, increase, or reduce the price of a commodity;

(c) To limit, increase, or reduce the production or output of a commodity;

(d) To hinder competition in the production, importation, manufacture, transportation, sale, or purchase of a commodity;

(e) To engross or forestall a commodity;

(f) To issue, own, or hold the certificate of stock of any trust and combine within the spirit of this statute knowing it to be such at the time of the issue, or the acquisition or holding such certificate; or

(g) To place the control to any extent of business, or of the proceeds or earnings thereof, contrary to the spirit and meaning of this chapter, in the power of trustees, by whatever name called; or (h) To enable or empower any other person than themselves, their proper officers, agents, and employees to dictate or control the man

agement of business, contrary to the spirit and meaning of this chapter; or

(i) To unite or pool interest in the importation, manufacture, production, transportation, or price of a commodity, contrary to the spirit and meaning of this statute.

Any corporation, domestic or foreign, or any partnership, or individual, or other association, or person whatsoever, who are now, or shall hereafter create, enter into, become a member of, or a party to any trust or combine as hereinabove defined shall be deemed and adjudged guilty of a conspiracy to defraud and shall be subject to the penalties hereinafter provided. Any person, association of persons, corporation, or corporations, domestic or foreign, who shall be a party or belong to a trust and combine shall be guilty of crime and upon conviction thereof, shall for a first offense be fined in any sum not less than one hundred dollars nor more than five thousand dollars and for a second or subsequent offense not less than two hundred dollars nor more than ten thousand dollars, and may be enjoined by a final decree of the chancery court, in a suit by the state on the relation of the attorney general, from the further prosecution of or doing of the acts constituting the trust and combine as defined in this chapter. (1926, ch. 182: 3281, 3282; 1908, chs. 88, 119: 5002, 4437.) Sec. 3437. Additional contracts or combinations not allowed by law. Any corporation, domestic or foreign, or individual, partnership, or association of persons whatsoever, who, with intent to accomplish the results herein prohibited or without such intent, shall accomplish such results to a degree inimicable to public welfare, and shall thus:

(a) Restrain or attempt to restrain the freedom of trade or production;

(b) Or shall monopolize or attempt to monopolize the production, control, or sale of any commodity, or the prosecution, management, or control of any kind, class, or description of business;

(c) Or shall engross or forestall or attempt to engross or forestall any commodity;

(d) Or shall destroy or attempt to destroy competition in the manufacture or sale of a commodity, by selling or offering the same for sale at a lower price at one place in the state than another or buying or offering to buy a commodity at a higher price at one place in the state than another, differences of freight and other necessary expenses of sale and delivery considered;

(e) Or shall destroy or attempt to destroy competition by rendering any service or manipulating, handling, or storing any commodity

for a less price in one locality than in another, the differences in the necessary expenses of carrying on the business considered, shall be deemed and held a trust and combine within the meaning and purpose of this section, and shall be liable to the pains, penalties, fines, forfeitures, judgments, and recoveries denounced against trusts and combines and shall be proceeded against in manner and form herein provided, as in case of other trusts and combines. And it shall be sufficient to make out a prima facie case of a violation of this subdivision of this section to show lower charge for the service therein mentioned in one locality than another, or to show a higher price paid for a commodity in one locality than another, differences of freight and other necessary expenses of operating business considered. (1926 ch. 182: 3283; 1908 ch. 119: 5002, 4437.)

Code Ann. (Supp. 1938)

Sec. 3438. Agricultural and other organizations not forbidden.— Nothing contained in this chapter shall be construed to forbid the existence of agricultural, horticultural, poultry, cattle, or dairy organizations, instituted for the purpose of cooperation or mutual help, having no capital stock and not conducted for profit, or to forbid or restrain individual members of such organizations from lawfully carrying out the legitimate objects thereof, nor be held or construed to be illegal combinations or conspiracies in restraint of trade under the antitrust law; nor shall this chapter prevent or penalize agreements entered into between canners or catchers of sea-food products or between canners and catchers of such products for the advancement and welfare of the sea-food industry in Mississippi, when such agreements so made between canners or catchers of such products, or canners and catchers of such products, shall be approved by an order entered upon the minutes of the Mississippi sea-food commission. (1934 ch. 379.)

Code Ann. (1930)

Sec. 3439. Penalty for violation of antitrust laws.-Any person, corporation, partnership, firm, or association of persons and the officers and representatives of the corporation or association violating any of the provisions of this chapter shall forfeit not less than one hundred dollars nor more than two thousand dollars for every such violation; and each month in which such person, corporation, or association shall violate this chapter shall be a separate violation, the forfeiture and penalty in such case to be recovered alone by suit in the name of the state on the relation of the attorney general and by the consent of the attorney general suits may be brought by any district attorney, such suits to be brought in any court of competent jurisdiction. (1926 ch. 182: 3286, 5004, 4439.)