An agreement to abandon a small oil business in consideration that the owner will be employed by a manufacturer of petroleum products is not a violation of section 6390 et seq. H. C. Kevil v. Standard Oil Co., 8 O. N. P. 311, 11 O. D. 114 (1900).

A contract not to operate a laboratory in a particular location for a stated period, in consideration of a promise that the city drop its suit against him for operating a nuisance in a restricted area, is enforceable. The restraint was revocable, and as the owner was not prevented from operating his laboratory in another location, the covenant was upheld. A contract in restraint of trade is valid if (1) the restraint is partial, (2) the contract is founded on a valid consideration, and (3) the restraint is reasonable and not oppressive. Grasselli v. Lowden, 11 O. S. 349 (ns) (1860).

Restrictive Covenants Ancillary to the Conveyance of Real Property.

A covenant in a deed forbidding the use of the property for hotel purposes as long as other property in the vicinity owned by the grantor is used for that purpose is enforceable. Stines v. Dorman, 25 O. S. 580 (1874).

III. TYING CONTRACTS AND EXCLUSIVE DEALING ARRANGEMENTS

Code Ann. (Throckmorton, 1936)
Cooperatives

Section 10186-16 provides that any agricultural cooperative marketing association may enter into marketing agreements 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 or specified commodities exclusively to or through the association, or any facilities created thereby. Section 10186-26 provides that such contracts shall not be considered illegal as such or in unlawful restraint of trade or as part of a conspiracy or combination to accomplish an improper or illegal purpose. See Exception to General Antitrust Laws, supra. See also Cooperatives in projected study.

Code Ann. (Baldwin's Throckmorton, Supp., 1939)

Liquor

Section 6064-24 provides that no manufacturer or wholesale distributor shall have any financial interest, directly or indirectly, by stock ownership or through interlocking directors in a corporation, or otherwise, in the establishment, maintenance, or promotion of the

business of any retail dealer; nor shall any manufacturer or wholesale distributor, nor any stockholder thereof acquire, directly or indirectly, by ownership in fee, leasehold, mortgage, or otherwise, any interest in the premises whereon the business of any other person engaged in the business of trafficking in beer or intoxicating liquor is conducted; and all contracts, covenants, conditions, and limitations whereby any person engaged or intending or proposing to engage in the sale of beer or intoxicating liquors promises to confine his sales of a particular kind or quality of beer or intoxicating liquor to one or more product or products, or the product or products of a specified manufacturer or wholesale distributor, or to give preference to such product or products, shall to that extent be absolutely void and of no effect; excepting that the making of such promise in any such form shall be cause for the revocation or suspension of any permit issued to any party thereto. See Special Anti-Trust Laws: Liquor, supra.

Judicial Decisions

Exclusive Dealing Arrangements.
Application of the Common Law.

A covenant in a lease providing that the lessee shall influence his employees to deal only at the store of the lessor created an unlawful restraint of trade. Crawford & Murray v. Wick, 18 O. S. (ns) 190 (1868).

A lessee's covenant not to sell beer other than that manufactured by the lessor for a period of 5 years and within a radius of 1 mile is not too great a restraint of trade and is valid. Huebner-Toledo Breweries v. Joseph Singlar et al., 77 O. S. 626, 84 N. E. 1128, 52 W. L. B. 638, 5 O. L. R. 527, reversing 8. O. C. C. (ns) 49, 18 O. C. D. 329 (1906).

A covenant in a mortgage restricting the sale of beer on the premises to a particular brand for a specified time is enforceable even after the mortgage is satisfied. Cleveland and Sandusky Brewing Co. v. Demko, 9 O. C. C. (ns) 130, 19 O. C. D. 102 (1907). See also Cleveland Sandusky Brewing Co. v. Kraval, 16 O. C. C. (ns) 292, 26 O. C. D. 557 (1908) aff'd. 82 O. S. 395, 92 N. E. 1118, 7 O. L. R. 623.

A provision that "we will protect you in the city of Cincinnati” in a contract for the sale of filter sheets is an exclusive agency arrangement, and is violated by shipment of such goods to other dealers in Cincinnati. Filtro Import Co. v. Janszen Co., 36 O. App. 63, 172 N. E. 578 (1930).

A contract providing that a distiller cease producing whiskey in the State in consideration of a promise that he become an exclusive dealer of another distiller within that area is unenforceable as an attempt to stifle competition, thereby creating a monopoly. Standard Distilling & Distributing Co. v. Block and Others, 78 O. S. 448, 85 N. E. 1132 (1908), reversing 5 O. N. P. (ns) 386, 17 O. D. 601 (1907). See also Diehl Brewing Co. v. Konst, 12 O. C. C. (ns) 577, 20 O. C. D. 782 (1905), aff'd. 79 O. S. 469, 87 N. E. 1137, 54 W. L. B. 73, 60 O. L. R. 630 (1909).

OKLAHOMA

I. TRUSTS, COMBINATIONS, AND MONOPOLIES

A. GENERAL ANTITRUST LAWS

CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS

Const. art. II. Sec. 32. Perpetuities-Monopolies-Primogeniture-Entailments.-Perpetuities and monopolies are contrary to the genius of a free government, and shall never be allowed, nor shall the law of primogeniture or entailments ever be in force in this State.

Const. art. V. Sec. 44. Unlawful restraints of trade.-The Legislature shall define what is an unlawful combination, monopoly, trust, act, or agreement, in restraint of trade, and enact laws to punish persons engaged in any unlawful combination, monopoly, trust, act, or agreement, in restraint of trade, or composing any such monopoly, trust, or combination.

Const. art. V. Sec. 51. Exclusive rights, privileges, or immunities.-The Legislature shall pass no law granting to any association, corporation, or individual any exclusive rights, privileges, or immunities within this State.

Const. art. IX. Sec. 41. Ownership of stock in competitorBanks and trust companies.-No corporation chartered or licensed to do business in this State shall own, hold, or control, in any manner whatever, the stock of any competitive corporation or corporations engaged in the same kind of business, in or out of the State, except such stock as may be pledged in good faith to secure bona fide indebtedness acquired upon foreclosure, execution sale, or otherwise for the satisfaction of debt. In all cases where any corporation acquires stock in any other corporation, as herein provided, it shall be required to dispose of the same within twelve months from the date of acquisition; and during the period of its ownership of such stock it shall have no right to participate in the control of such

corporation, except when permitted by order of the Corporation Commission. No trust company, or bank or banking company shall own, hold, or control, in any manner whatever, the stock of any other trust company or bank or banking company, except such stock as may be pledged in good faith to secure bona fide indebtedness, acquired upon foreclosure, execution sale, or otherwise for the satisfaction of debt; and such stock shall be disposed of in the time and manner hereinbefore provided.

Const. art. IX. Sec. 45. Monopoly or destruction of competition-Discrimination prohibited.-Until otherwise provided by law, no person, firm, association, or corporation engaged in the production, manufacture, distribution, or sale of any commodity of general use, shall, for the purpose of creating a monopoly or destroying competition in trade, discriminate between different persons, associations, or corporations, or different sections, communities, or cities of the State, by selling such commodity at a lower rate in one section, community, or city than in another, after making due allowance for the difference, if any, in the grade, quantity, or quality, and in the actual cost of transportation from the point of production or manufacture.1

Const. art. XVIII. Sec. 7. Control and regulation not divested-Surrender of powers-Exclusive franchises.-No grant, extension, or renewal of any franchise or other use of the streets, alleys, or other public grounds or ways of any municipality, shall divest the State, or any of its subdivisions, of their control and regulation of such use and enjoyment.

Nor shall the power to regulate the charges of public services be surrendered; and no exclusive franchise shall ever be granted.

STATUTORY PROVISIONS
Stat. Ann. (1937), tit. 79

Combinations in Restraint of Trade.

Prohibitory Provisions.

Sec. 1. Trust in restraint of trade illegal.-Every act, agreement, contract, or combination in the form of trust, or otherwise, or conspiracy in restraint of trade or commerce within this State, which is against public policy, is hereby declared to be illegal. (R. L. 1910, sec. 8220.)

Sec. 2. Discriminations in buying and selling commodities unlawful. It shall be unlawful for any person, firm, corporation, or association, engaged in the production, manufacture, distribution, pur

1

For further treatment of art. IX, sec. 45, see vol. State Price Control Legislation: Antidiscrimination Legislation.