Sections 4809, 4810, and 4811 provide that it is unlawful for a corporation interested in the operation, ownership, management, or control of the manufacture of cottonseed oil or any byproduct of cottonseed or of a compress business to own, lease, or control in any way or have any interest in a cotton gin and that no person interested directly or indirectly in an oil or seed company may become a stockholder, director, or manager of a corporation doing a ginning business. It is unlawful to grant a charter to a ginning company where any of the incorporators are owners, stockholders, trustees, or attorneys of any oil or seed company. But cottonseed oil or compress companies may, except for the purpose of destroying business, operate a cotton. gin of a capacity not exceeding 600 saws, located in the city or town where the oil or compress plant is located. A natural person owning a gin and ginning for himself and tenants, but not for the public, may own stock in and become a director in a cotton oil company. Corporate violators are subject to forfeiture of charter or right to do business in the State.

Dairy Products-Discrimination

Section 4291 provides that local discrimination in the purchase or sale price of dairy products for the purpose of destroying a competitor or creating a monopoly, is unlawful. See Vol. State Price Control Legislation: Antidiscrimination Legislation.

Code Ann. (Supp. 1938)

Canned Sea Products

Sections 2591 to 2600 provide that canners, processors, or packers of aquatic products may act together in associations in collectively handling such products, have common marketing agencies, and make necessary contracts to this end. These contracts must have no reference to the price to be paid fishermen for raw products and must not curtail the production, canning, or packing of shrimp or oysters. If the Sea Food Commissioner shall have reason to believe that any such association monopolizes or restrains trade in intrastate or interstate commerce to such an extent that sea-food prices are enhanced, or that it discriminates against any person, or that it limits produc tion, he may, after proper hearing, issue a cease-and-desist order. Nothing in this act shall apply to any labor organization or fishermen's union or deprive them of rights vested prior to the passage of the act. The right of these organizations to fix scales of wages for their members and prices to be charged by their members for raw sea food is recognized.

Code Ann. (Supp. 1938)
Liquor

Section 2878 provides that no manufacturer, distributor, or wholesale dealer to whom or to which this act applies, shall, directly or indirectly, make any loan or furnish any fixtures of any kind to any retail dealer; or have any interest, direct or indirect, in the business of or in the furnishings or fixtures or in the premises used by any such retail dealer in connection with his or its business; or by any lien on any such property of any such retail dealer.

Section 2890 provides that any violation of any provision of this act or of any rule or regulation pursuant thereto, shall be a misdemeanor, and where the punishment thereof is not elsewhere prescribed herein, shall be punished by fine of not more than $500 or imprisonment for not more than six months, or both, in the discretion of the court. Any license held by a person so convicted shall become void and the holder shall not thereafter for a period of one year be entitled to any license.

2. Public Contract Provisions

Code Ann. (1930)
General

Sections 3443 and 3444 provide that a pool to prevent separate bidding for the performance of a public work for the State or any county, municipality, or levee board thereof, or by persuasion or reward to prevent any one from bidding on such public work, is a misdemeanor. State officers shall not make payment on contracts violating these provisions. See General Antitrust Laws, supra.

No provisions.

3. Anticoercive Financing Statutes

Railroads.

Judicial Decisions

Consolidation of part of the Yazoo railway line, running between Points Y and Z, and part of the main line of the Southern Railway, running between Z and a point 7 or 8 miles west connecting with a branch line 33 miles long to Y was held to be competing and parallel within meaning of section 6106. Yazoo & M. V. R. R. Co. v. Southern Ry. Co., 83 Miss. 746, 36 So. 74 (1903). See also State v. Mobile R. Co., 86 Miss. 172, 38 So. 732 (1905).

Cotton Oil.

Section 4809 et seq. (L. 1928, c. 305) does not violate the Fifth and Fourteent hamendments to the Constitution of the United States nor sections 14 and 87 of the State Constitution (1890). State ex rel. Jordan v. Gilmer Grocery Co., 156 Miss. 99, 125 So. 710 (1930). Application of Statutes

Section 4809 is a valid exercise of the State's legislative power. State ex rel. Collins v. Crescent Cotton Oil Co., 116 Miss. 398, 77 So. 185 (1918); this section is not invalid as a burden on interstate commerce. Cotton ginning is an intrastate activity, although the cottonseed oil produced is destined for interstate shipment. Crescent Cotton Oil Co. v. State ex rel. Collins, 121 Miss. 615, 83 So. 680 (1920). This case was affirmed even though the enactment is applicable to corporations only. The classifications are neither arbitrary nor unreasonable. Id. 257 U. S. 129, 42 Sup. Ct. 42. 66 L. Ed. 166 (1921).

Cottonseed-oil manufacturers are prohibited from operating a cotton gin, except where the manufacturing plant and cotton gin are located in the same town. The charter of a foreign corporation may be forfeited, and fines imposed for violations as provided for in sections 4809, 4810. State ex rel. Collins, Atty. Gen. v. Crescent Cotton Oil Co., 116 Miss. 398, 77 So. 185 (1917).

A cottonseed-oil company's operation of a cotton gin incidental to its purchase of cottonseed for shipment to its oil mill in another State is not in violation of section 4809 (L. 1914 c. 164) Crescent Cotton Oil Co. v. State ex rel. Collins, 121 Miss. 615, 83 So. 680 (1920). Sections 4809, 4810 (L. 1914 c. 164) are not invalid as a burden on interstate commerce. Ibid.

Public Contract Provisions

Section 3437 is not applicable to the letting of contracts for the purchase of school books or other commodities by the State or any of its statutory agencies. Such contracts are valid even though the bids placed are below the normal cost of production. A public contract for an article below cost is not "inimical to the public welfare" under section 3437, nor in violation of section 197, Constitution (1890). Johnson Publishing Co. v. Mills, 79 Miss. 543, 31 So. 101 (1901).

II. CONTRACTS NOT TO COMPETE

No statutory provisions.

Judicial Decisions

Covenants Ancillary to Sale of a Business.

The defendant, vendor of a business and owner of the realty, covenanted not to rent adjoining stable and lot for a period of 5 years to any other person handling horses or mules. Held error to admit. evidence to the effect that the defendant built and rented a stable in another part of town to parties engaged in the livery business. Pitts v. Montgomery, 79 Miss. 250, 30 So. 649 (1901).

Defendant, ancillary to the sale of an insurance agency, agreed not to engage in that business in four counties for a period of 10 years. In an action for breach of the contract, plaintiff failed to show that the restriction was reasonable and necessary for the protection of its goodwill. As section 3437 is declaratory of the common law, the court, in applying the rule of reason, held the limitation unwarranted. Sively v. Cramer, 105 Miss. 13, 61 So. 653 (1913).

An agreement by a seller of a restaurant not to engage in a like business in the same city although unlimited in time, is reasonable and not in violation of the antitrust law. Contracts in restraint of trade are not unlawful unless also shown to be "inimical to the public welfare." Jackson v. Price et ux., 140 Miss. 249, 105 So. 538 (1925). Covenants Ancillary to Employment.

The contract of an assistant physician not to engage in the practice of medicine in a city, or within 5 miles thereof, from the date of the termination of employment, was held valid. The limitation was reasonably necessary for the protection of the employer without imposing undue hardship on the employee. Wilson v. Gamble, 180 Miss. 499, 177 So. 363 (1937).

Covenants Ancillary to the Lease of Property.

An agreement by a lessor not to engage in the moving-picture business in the same city for the duration of the lease would have been valid at common law. Applying the rule of reason, the court held the restriction valid under section 3437. Plaza Amusement Co. et al. v. Rathenberg, 159 Miss. 800, 131 So. 350 (1930). Sively v. Cramer, 105 Miss. 13, 61 So. 653 (1913).

Provision in a public contract that the seller may decline further deliveries if the buyer resold cement purchased, or used any part of it in work other than that described, is not invalid under section 3443. Gano v. Delmas, 140 Miss. 323, 105 So. 535 (1925).

A power company has the right to shut down a failing subsidiary ice plant and the incidental right of selling it to a competitor. The competitor has the corresponding right of purchasing it without incurring liability under section 3440. Pitts v. Mississippi Power & Light Co., 177 Miss. 288, 170 So. 817 (1936).

A cotton-oil company, agreeing to refrain from purchasing seed in competitor's territory, so long as production and prices for cottonseed are controlled by competitor in that territory, violates section 3437. State v. Jackson Cotton Oil Co., 95 Miss. 6, 48 So. 300 (1909).

An agreement between several oil companies to divide certain territories between them for the purpose of selling petroleum and other products at controlled prices is prohibited by section 3437. Standard Oil of Ky. v. State, 107 Miss. 377, 65 So. 468 (1914).

An agreement between several fire-insurance companies to delegate to an association the power to prescribe premium rates to be charged by its members is a "trust and combine." American Fire Insurance Co. v. State, 75 Miss. 24, 22 So. 99 (1897).

Prosecutions under section 3436 must aver an unlawful agreement. Adopting insurance rates promulgated by the Mississippi Inspection and Advisory Rating Bureau in absence of a delegation of rate-fixing power or an agreement compelling compliance therewith is not unlawful. Miller v. Fidelity Union Fire Insurance Co., 126 Miss. 301. 88 So. 711 (1921). Contracts made by insurance company with its agents prescribing certain rates, but not part of an agreement to fix rates, is valid. Aetna Insurance Co. v. Robertson, 131 Miss. 343, 95 137 (1923).

ssociation enforcing car service provisions and demurrage but not engaged in a price-fixing scheme, does not violate 7. Yazoo & M. V. R. Co. v. Searles, supra.

ional scheme adopted by merchants and the chamber of a community offering certain prizes to stimulate sales y" is not a trust or combination in violation of the R. J. Williams Furniture Co. v. McComb Chamber of iss. 649, 112 So. 579 (1927).

of corporations through holding companies for the competition is illegal. Southern Elec. Co. v. State, 785 (1907). See also Wury v. McClung, 78 (1901).