the employment terminated. The assistant having been employed for a number of years, the agreement was held to be reasonable. An employee's agreement not to compete with his employer at termination is valid, if the restraint is necessary for the protection of the employer, is of no longer duration than is necessary to protect employer's interest, is not injurious to the public, and is founded on legal consideration. Freudenthal v. Espey, 45 Colo. 488, 102 Pac. 280 (1909). Agreement by a laundry employee not to solicit customers of employer for a period of 6 months was held reasonable. Axelson v. Columbine Laundry Co., 81 Colo. 254, 254 Pac. 990 (1927). An agreement by a tea and coffee salesman not to compete by taking orders for teas, coffees, "or other merchandise," after termination of employment was held reasonable. Rule of ejusdem generis was applied to "or other merchandise." Jewel Tea Co. v. Watkins, 26 Colo. App. 494, 145 Pac. 719 (1915). Restrictive Covenants Not Ancillary to Sale of a Business Interest. In consideration of loans made by certain brewers to the Dacono Town Site Co., it was agreed that the real-estate firm would include covenants prohibiting the sale of liquor within restricted areas in their conveyances of land. Defendant, a purchaser of such land, violated the covenant, contending that the prohibition was illegal and in restraint of trade. The court held the covenant valid, notwithstanding the agreement between the brewers and real-estate firm. The court added that the sale of intoxicating liquors is injurious to the public and should be restrained. Fusha v. Dacono Town Site Company, 60 Colo. 315, 153 Pac. 226 (1915). (The court failed to discuss a number of relevant objections raised by the defense.) Provision for payment of a fixed sum for violation of a covenant not to compete held void as a "penalty" where intended to coerce performance by the covenantor rather than to compensate the covenantee for nonperformance. Gougar v. Buffalo Specialty Co., 26 Colo. App. 8, 141 Pac. 511 (1914). But on a second appeal the court held there was no jurisdiction over the subject matter of the case. Buffalo Specialty Co. v Gougar, 26 Colo. App. 523, 144 Pac. 325 (1914). III. TYING CONTRACTS AND EXCLUSIVE DEALING ARRANGEMENTS Stat. Ann. (Michie, 1935), c. 106 Sections 31 and 42 provide that an agricultural cooperative marketing association organized under sections 14 to 45 may enter into contracts with its members, requiring the members to sell for a period of not over 10 years, all or any specified part of their agricultural products or specified commodities exclusively to or through the association, and that these agreements shall not be deemed illegal or in unlawful restraint of trade, or a conspiracy or combination to accomplish an illegal purpose. See Exceptions to General Anti-Trust Laws, supra. See also Cooperatives in projected study. Liquor Stat. Ann. (Michie, 1935) c. 89, sec. 28 provides that it shall be unlawful for any owner or person interested, directly or indirectly, in any retail business to enter into any agreement with any other person to receive, possess, or accept any money, fixtures, supplies, services, or things of value from any other person whatever, whereby a retail licensee may be influenced or caused directly or indirectly to buy, sell, dispense, or handle the product of any manufacturer of alcoholic beverages. See Special Antitrust Laws: Liquor. Judicial Decisions A railway company owning a strip of land at a railroad station may, unless there is evidence of injury to the public, grant to one taxi company an exclusive license to use the land as a hack stand, provided the other companies have free access to and from the station to deliver and take away passengers. Union Depot and Ry. Co. v. Meeting, 42 Colo. 89, 94 Pac. 16 (1908). The burden was on defendant, a salesman having an exclusive sales territory, to show that the contract was illegal when he defended an action by the plaintiff company for the sales price of goods sold. Defendant contended that plaintiff manufacturing company illegally and arbitrarily fixed unreasonably high retail prices for said goods. Richards v. Rawleigh Co., 74 Colo. 463, 222 Pac. 650 (1924). CONNECTICUT I. TRUSTS, COMBINATIONS, AND MONOPOLIES A. GENERAL ANTITRUST LAWS CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS Const. art. I, sec. 1. That all men when they form a social compact, are equal in rights; and that no man or set of men are entitled to exclusive public emoluments or privileges from the community. STATUTORY PROVISIONS Sec. 6352. Combination to increase price of necessities.-Any person who, for himself or as a member of any firm or an officer or agent of any corporation, shall conspire with or enter into any combination or agreement with any other person or any firm or corporation for the purpose of fixing or maintaining a higher price, at wholesale or retail, for ice, coal, or any other necessity of life, than would prevail except for such conspiracy, combination, or agreement, or of limiting or restraining the production, manufacture, shipment or sale of any such commodity for the purpose of increasing the price thereof, shall be fined not more than one thousand dollars or imprisoned not more than five years or both. 1918, S. 6503. Judicial Decisions GENERAL ANTITRUST LAWS Application of the Common Law. Where one company agreed to manufacture copper bands for a second company with copper furnished by the latter, the object being to aid the latter in performing its contract to deliver the finished bands to a third party, the arrangement was held not to be monopolistic nor 210235-40-vol. 1-11 81 in unreasonable restraint of trade even though by entering into the arrangement, the first-named company was estopped from attempting to obtain the contract for itself by underbidding the second company. Seymour Mfg. Co. v. Derby Mfg. Co. 94 Conn. 311, 109 Atl. 395 (1920). A grant by the legislature of an exclusive right to erect and operate a toll bridge for a limited time (100 years) was held to be a valid exercise of its power essential to the public welfare. The Enfield Toll Bridge Company v. The Hartford and New Haven Railroad Company, 17 Conn. 40 (1845). Application of Constitutional Provisions. An act, L. 1893, c. 121, authorizing the officers of municipalities to exercise their discretion in granting or refusing to grant licenses to itinerant vendors with power to grant special privileges to licensees. was held to be in violation of Const. art. I, sec. 1, prohibiting the grant of exclusive privileges in that it permits local officials to prohibit, at their will, the pursuit of a legitimate business. State v. Conlon, 65 Conn. 478, 33 Atl. 519 (1895). B. EXCEPTIONS TO GENERAL ANTITRUST LAWS Gen. Stat. (Supp. 1937) Resale Price Maintenance Section 593d permits contracts fixing the resale price of branded commodities. The statute is expressly inapplicable to horizontal agreements between producers, between wholesalers, or between retailers. Sec. 593d (g). See Vol. State Price Control Legislation: Resale Price Maintenance. C. SPECIAL ANTITRUST LAWS 1. Special Industry Antitrust Acts Gen. Stat. (Supp. 1935) Section 1027c, as amended by L. 1939, c. 280, provides roughly for three classes of permits: manufacturer, wholesaler, and retailer. Section 1012c (10) defines "backer" as the proprietor of any business or club engaged in the manufacture or sale of alcoholic liquor, in which business a permittee is associated, whether as an employee, agent, or part owner. Section 1047c, as amended by L. 1939, c. 333, provides that no backer or permittee of one class shall be a backer or permittee of |