INDEX. [The references are to sections.] ANTI-MONOPOLY ACT, statute of Georgia, 120. ANTI-TRUST ACT, law of Michigan, 198. statute of Missouri, 201. ANTI-TRUST LAW, statute of Maine, 197. statute of South Dakota, 210. ANTI-TRUST LEGISLATION, federal anti-trust act, 184. Arkansas anti-trust act, 186. California cattle trust, 187. A. Delaware life insurance law, 188. Florida legislation relating to trusts and monopolies, 189. Georgia anti-monopoly act, 190. Illinois act prohibiting pools, trusts and combines, 191. Indiana anti-trust act, 192. Iowa anti-pool and trust law, 193. Kansas law prohibiting trusts, 194. Kentucky law prohibiting pools, trusts and conspiracies, 195. Louisiana law for the prohibition of trusts and combinations in re- straint of trade, 196. Maine anti-trust law, 197. Michigan anti-trust act, 198. Minnesota law to prohibit pools and trusts, 199. Mississippi law prohibiting trusts and combines, 200. Missouri anti-trust act, 201. Montana statute against monopolies and trusts, 202. Nebraska statute against trusts and conspiracies against trade and New Mexico law declaring trust combinations illegal. 204. [The references are to sections.] ANTI-TRUST LEGISLATION-Continued. New York law to prevent monopolies, 205. North Carolina law for the prohibition of trusts, 206. North Dakota law declaring certain trusts and combinations un- Oklahoma law to prevent combinations in restraint of trade, 208. South Dakota anti-trust law, 210. Tennessee law to prohibit conspiracies and trusts, 211. Texas law for the suppression of trusts and the promotion of true Law of Utah prohibiting pools and trusts, 213. Washington law forbidding trusts and monopolies, 214. Wisconsin statute prohibiting trusts and combinations in restraint BADGERING, the offense abolished, 9. SEE INTRODUCTION. BAKING BUSINESS, B. power of the State to regulate the manufacture of bread, 144. C. CATTLE TRUST, California, 187. COMBINATIONS IN RESTRAINT OF TRADE. SEE RESTRAINT OF law of Oklahoma to prevent, 208. COMBINATIONS OF RAILWAY COMPANIES, subject to certain public obligations, 148. privileges of railway corporations, 148. granted for the benefit of the public, 148. rule stated by Supreme Court of the United States, 148. for suppression of competition, 149. illegal and void, 149. pooling by railway companies. 149. in contravention of public policy and void, 149. the rule in Indiana and in Connecticut, 149. the leading case before the United States Supreme Court, 150. purchase of competing lines, 151. object to create a monopoly, 151. when illegal and void. 151. the rule in Texas and in New Jersey, 151. free competition essential to the security of the public, 153. indirect consolidation not sustained, 154. decision of the Supreme Court of the United States, 154. rule in case of traffic arrangement, 155. governed by rule relating to parallel lines, 155. decision of federal court, 155. the rule in Pennsylvania, 155. depot grounds, admission to, 156. question not definitely determined, 156. not permitted to discriminate, 156. may make reasonable regulations, 156. cannot admit one and exclude another, 156 and n. general powers of railway corporations, 157. must be granted by charter and legal rules, 157. railway companies quasi public corporations, 157. stockholders in railway corporations, 157. not bound by acts of directory outside of ordinary business, 157. private interests subordinate to public interests, 157. COMMON CARRIERS. SEE PUBLIC POLICY. obligations of, as affected by strikes. 109. when responsible for delays, 109. COMPETING RAILWAY LINES, purchase of, when illegal and void, 151. CONSPIRACIES AND TRUSTS, law of Tennessee to prohibit, 211. CONSPIRACIES IN RESTRAINT OF TRADE, an attempt to avoid the penalties of the trust, 77. [The references are to sections.] CONSPIRACIES IN RESTRAINT OF TRADE-Continued. conspiracy defined, 78 and n. the gist of the offense, 78. the English doctrine, 79. more tolerant than the American rule, 79. conspiracy by a corporation. 80. action against, maintainable, 80. corporations responsible for, 80. combinations to monopolize a particular branch of business a con- contracts relating to such combinations illegal and void, 81. the rule in Pennsylvania, 81. the rule in Wisconsin, 81. in Illinois, in Minnesota, in Texas, 81. combinations for regulating prices, 82. such combinations a conspiracy in restraint of trade, 82. in Illinois, in Massachusetts, 82 and n. conspiracies under federal anti-trust act, 83 and n. rule in England, 84. rule in New York, 84. the Illinois doctrine, 84. when such combinations become a conspiracy. 84. conspiracy for severing the relation of a minister to his congre- indictment for, 87. particular offense must be definitely charged, 87. must aver the criminality of the act or of the means em- law relating to, fixed by statute, 88. the law in Illinois, 88. the Texas statute, Act of 1889, 88. CONTRACTS IN CONTRAVENTION OF LAW. SEE PUBLIC CONTRACTS IN RESTRAINT OF TRADE. SEE RESTRAINT OF general principle on which held illegal, 36. injurious to the parties, 36. public deprived of valuable services, 36. discourages industry and enterprise, 36. prevents competition, 36. fosters the evils of monopolies, 36. [The references are to sections.] CONTRACTS IN RESTRAINT OF TRADE-Continued. rule early established in England, 36. still the doctrine of England and American courts, 36. what contract will be upheld, 37. courts inclined to leniency, 37. doctrine modified by circumstances, 37 and n. partially distinguished from general restraint. 39. questions of consideration, 40. contracts without consideration invalid, 40. question whether bargain was judicious not to be considered, 40. the rule stated, 41 and n. Lord Smith's exposition, 41. contract in general restraint not rendered valid by limitation in time, 42. void if restraint unreasonable, 42. rule stated by Justice Black, 42 and n. territorial limitations, 43. without such limitations, illegal and void, 43. all the circumstances of the case to be considered, 43. rule in Alabama, 43. rule stated by the Supreme Court of the United States, 43. rule stated by Justice Andrews, 44. rule stated by Sir George Jessell, 44. territorial limits determined, 45. rule in Michigan, 45. rule in Connecticut, 45. validity of, as affected by their reasonableness. 46. question of validity the question of reasonableness, 46. what is held unreasonable, 46 and n. the rule in New Jersey, 46. when invalid by statute reasonableness not considered, 46. divisibility of illegal contract, 47. when only partially illegal, may be divided. 47. |