Affirmed.

Co., 122 Fed. 529, 2 Fed. Anti-Trust Dec. 237. Swift & Co. v. United States, 196 U. S. 375, 49 L. Ed. 518, 25 Sup. Ct. 276, 2 Fed. Anti-Trust Dec. 641, holding that although the separate elements of a combination may be legal, if the common intent is to monopolize trade, it is illegal. The Minnesota Anti-Trust Act not violated under the facts pleaded. Minnesota v. Northern Securities Co., 123 Fed. 692, 2 Fed. Anti-Trust Dec. 246. Reversed because the federal court had no jurisdiction and remanded to the state court. Minnesota v. Northern Securities Co., 194 U. S. 48, 48 L. Ed. 870, 24 Sup. Ct. 598, 2 Fed. Anti-Trust Dec. 533. A combination to control prices in a local market and to refuse to sell to consumers who buy from nonmembers, some of whom live out of the state, is not within act. Ellis v. Inman, Poulsen & Co., 124 Fed. 956, 2 Fed. Anti-Trust Dec. 268. Reversed, holding that the federal law applied. Same style case, 131 Fed. 182, 65 C. C. A. 488, 2 Fed. Anti-Trust Dec. 577. Sale of goods limiting the right of the vendor to go into business within fifty miles of the place of sale valid, and being within a state not violative of the federal act. Robinson v. Suburban Brick Co., 127 Fed. 804, 62 C. C. A. 484, 2 Fed. Anti-Trust Dec. 312. Booth & Co. v. Davis, 127 Fed. 875, 2 Fed. Anti-Trust Dec. 318. Affirmed. Davis v. Booth, 131 Fed. 31, 65 C. C. A. 269, 2 Fed. AntiTrust Dec. 566. Writ of certiorari denied by Supreme Court. 195 U. S. 636. See also Camors-McConnell Co. v. McConnell, 140 Fed. 412, 2 Fed. Anti-Trust Dec. 817. Affirmed. McConnell v. Camors-McConnell Co., 140 Fed. 987, 72 C. C. A. 681, 2 Fed. Anti-Trust Dec. 825. Rehearing denied. Same case, 152 Fed. 321, 81 C. C. A. 429; American Brake Beam Co. v. Pungs, 141 Fed. 923, 73 C. C. A. 157, 2 Fed. Anti-Trust Dec. 826. Combination of carriers by which by concerted action rates are. advanced violates act. Tift v. Southern Ry. Co., 138 Fed. Anti-Trust Dec. 753, 2 Fed. Anti-Trust 733. Affirmed. So. Ry. Co. v. Tift, 148 Fed. 1021, 206 U. S. 428, 51 L. Ed. 1124, 27 Sup. Ct. 709. After a copyrighted book has been sold, although with a statement printed therein that the purchaser could not sell except at a stated price, the purchaser can sell at any price he sees fit. Book trust declared illegal. Bobbs-Merrill Co. V. Straus, 139 Fed. 155, 2 Fed. Anti-Trust Dec. 755. Affirmed. Same style case, 147 Fed.

15, 77 C. C. A. 607, 15 L. R. A. 766, 210 U. S. 339, 52 L. Ed. 1086, 28 Sup. Ct. 722. The immunity act, act Feb. 19, 1903, applies to the Anti-Trust Act. Re Hale, 139 Fed. 496, 2 Fed. Anti-Trust Dec. 804. Affirmed. Hale v. Henkel, 201 U. S. 43, 50 L. Ed. 652, 26 Sup. Ct. 370, 2 Fed. Anti-Trust Dec. 874; McAlister v. Henkel, 201 U. S. 90, 50 L. Ed. 671, 26 Sup. Ct. 385, 2 Fed. Anti-Trust Dec. 919. Followed, Nelson v. United States, 201 U. S. 92, 50 L. Ed. 673, 26 Sup. Ct. 358, 2 Fed. Anti-Trust Dec. 920. A patentee may grant licenses to sell the patented article on condition of selling at prices fixed by the patentee, but under the facts of this case license contract void as violative of Anti-Trust Act. Rubber Tire Wheel Co. v. Milwaukee Rubber Co., 142 Fed. 531, 2 Fed. AntiTrust Dec. 855. Reversed, same style case, 154 Fed. 358, 83 C. C. A. 336. Good will contract valid. A purchaser of a river boat cannot refuse to pay there for because in the contract of purchase he agreed to maintain existing rates. Cincinnati, P. B. S. & P. P. Co. v. Bay, 200 U. S. 179, 50 L. Ed. 428, 26 Sup. Ct. 208, 2 Fed. Anti-Trust Dec. 867. An order directing a witness to answer questions relating to violations of the act is interlocutory and not appealable. Alexander v. United States, 201 U. S. 117, 50 L. Ed. 686, 26 Sup. Ct. 356. 2 Fed. Anti-Trust Dec. 945. Immunity does not apply to corporations whose officers may testify, it does not apply to individuals who testify at hearings before the Commissioner of Corporations. United States v. Armour, 162 Fed. 808, 2 Fed. Anti-Trust Dec. 951. does not make void a collateral contract for the manufacture and sale of goods. Hadley, Dean Plate Glass Co. v. Highland Glass Co., 143 Fed. 242, 74 C. C. A. 462, 2 Fed. AntiTrust Dec. 994. Followed, Chicago Wall Paper Mills v. General Paper Co., 147 Fed. 491, 78 C. C. A. 607, 2 Fed. AntiTrust Dec. 1027. It is not unlawful for a manufacturer of a proprietary medicine to contract with the dealers who purchase such medicine from him, that they shall sell at a fixed price. Hartman v. John D. Park & Sons, 145 Fed. 358, 2 Fed. Anti-Trust Dec. 999. Reversed, holding contract unenforceable. John D. Park & Sons v. Martman, 153 Fed. 24, 82 C. C. A. 158, 12 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1135. Circuit court

followed Dr. Miles Medicine Co. v. Jaynes Drug Co., 149 Fed. 838. Circuit court of appeal followed. Dr. Miles Medical Co. v. John D. Park & Sons Co., 164 Fed. 803, 90 C. C. A. 599. Writ of error granted by Supreme Court. A carrier may enter into an exclusive contract with one to build up, develop and conduct a particular traffic business along its line. Delaware, L. & W. R. Co. v. Kutter, 147 Fed. 51, 77 C. C. A. 315, 2 Fed. Anti-Trust Dec. 1021. Petition for writ of certiorari denied, 203 U. S. 588, 51 L. Ed. 330. An agreement between publishers of copyrighted books, who control ninety per cent. of the book business, not to sell to any one who cuts prices, or who sells to one who cuts prices, is illegal. Mines v. Scribner, 147 Fed. 927, 2 Fed. Anti-Trust Dec. 1035. See case of Bobbs-Merrill Co. v. Straus, supra. The attempt of a labor union to compel, by a boycott, a manufacturer to unionize his factory not within act. Loewe v. Lawlor, 148 Fed. 924. See same case, 130 Fed. 633, 2 Fed. Anti-Trust Dec. 563, 142 Fed. 216, 2 Fed. Anti-Trust Dec. 854. Reversed, holding that such acts constituted a violation of the act. Loewe v. Lawlor, 208 U. S. 274, 52 L. Ed. 488, 28 Sup. Ct. 301. Purchase money of goods can not be recovered when the purchase was made as part of a combination in restraint of trade. Continental Wall Paper Co. v. Lewis Voight & Sons Co., 148 Fed. 939, 78 C. C. A. 567. Affirmed, same style case, 212 U. S. 227, 53 L. Ed. 486, 29 Sup. Ct. 280. Act not effect a contract by which foreign ship owners endeavor to pervent dealing with their competitors. Thomson v. Union Castle Mail Steamship Co., 149 Fed. 933. Reversed, holding that when the combination was put in effect in the United States it violated its laws. Thomson v. Union Castle Mail Steamship Co., 166 Fed. 251, 32 C. C. A. 315. Trusts defined, quoting Coke's definition. Re Charge to Grand Jury, 151 Fed. 834. Though a rate is established in violation of Anti-Trust Act, application must first be made to the Interstate Commerce Commission to declare rate illegal. American Union Coal Co. v. Penn. R. Co., 159 Fed. 278; Meeker v. Lehigh V. R. Co., 162 Fed. 354. Mere agreement not effective does not violate law. The facts in the case show a violation. United States Tobacco Co. v. American Tobacco Co., 163 Fed. 701; Weisert Bros. Tobacco

Co. v. American Tobacco Co., Larus & Bro. Co. v. Same, 163 Fed. 712. The American Tobacco Co., declared a trust. United States v. American Tobacco Co., 164 Fed. 700; People's Tobacco Co. v. American Tobacco Co., 170 Fed. 396, 95 C. C. A. 566. A patentee may legally limit the licensee in the manner of selling. Goshen Rubber Works v. Single Tube A. & B. Tire Co., 166 Fed. 431, 92 C. C. A. 183, but not so when the purpose of the contract is to enhance prices and not as an incident to the sale of the patent right. Blount Mfg. Co. v. Yale & Towne Mfg. Co., 166 Fed. 555. Facts not constituting a violation. Bigelow v. Calumet & Hecla Mining Co., 167 Fed. 704. Affirmed, same style case, 167 Fed. 721, 94 C. C. A. 13. A lease of a plant executed in pursuance of a plan to monopolize the cotton compressing business illegal. Shawnee Compress Co. v. Anderson, 209 U. S. 423, 52 L. Ed. 865, 28 Sup. Ct. 572. No judgment will be rendered for the purchase price of property when "such a judgment would, in effect, aid the execution of agreements which constituted" an illegal combination. Four judges dissent. Continental Wall Paper Co. v. Voight & Sons Co., 212 U. S. 227, 53 L. Ed. 486, 29 Sup. Ct. 280.

Notes of Decisions Rendered Since 1909.

Monopoly defined as the concentration of business. Nattional Fire Proofing Co. v. Masons' Builders' Ass'n, 169 Fed. 259, 94 C. C. A. 535. Charge to a jury defining monopoly and giving the elements of the crime under the statute. U. S. v. American Naval Stores Co., 172 Fed. 455, affirming Nash v. U. S., 186 Fed. 489, see also U. S. v. American Naval Stores Co., 186 Fed. 592. A Coal Company may select its customers and refuse to sell others. Union Pac. Coal Co. v. U. S., 173 Fed. 737, 97 C. C. A. 578. That the holder of a patent is a party to an unlawful conspiracy in restraint of trade is no defense to a suit for an infringement of the patent. Johns-Pratt Co. v. Sachs Co., 176 Fed. 738; Northwestern Cons. M. Co. v. Callam & Son, 177 Fed. 786; Virtue v. Creamery Package Mfg. Co., 179 Fed. 115, 102 C. C. A. 413; Motion Picture Patent Co. v. Ullman, 186 Fed. 174; U. S. Fire Escape Co. v. Joseph Halstead Co., 195 Fed. 295; Fraser v. Duffey, 196 Fed. 900; Coco-Cola Co. v. Deacon-Brown

Bottling Co., 200 Fed. 105; Coco-Cola Co. v. Gay-Ola Co., 200 Fed. 720; Motion Picture Patent Co. v. Eclair Film Co., 208 Fed. 416. The prohibition is of all restraint, not merely unreasonable restraint. Ware-Kramer Tobacco Co. v. Am. Tob. Co., 180 Fed. 160. A sale of corporate assets can not be enjoined under the anti-trust statute unless such sale furthers a conspiracy in violation of such statute. Bonny v. Cumberland-Ely Coffee Co., 183 Fed. 640. Sale of good will legal if made in good faith, otherwise if for the purpose of restraining trade. Darius Cole Transp. Co. v. White Star Line, 186 Fed. 63, 108 C. C. A. 165, writ of certiorari denied same styled case, 225 U. S. 704., 56 L. Ed. 1265, 32 Sup. Ct. 837. To the same effect see U. S. Great Lakes Towing Co., 208 Fed. 733, holding the contract there set out to be illegal. Sufficiency of indictment discussed. U. S. v. Swift, 188 Fed. 92; U. S. v. Patterson, 201 Fed. 697. Not all combinations illegal. U. S. v. E. I. DuPont De Nemours & Co., 188 Fed. 127. A railroad company can not legally give an exclusive right to one tug for the use of its pier. Baker-Whiteley Coal Co. v. B. & O. R. Co., 188 Fed. 305, 110 C. C. A. 234, reversing same styled case, 176 Fed. 632. No defense to a condemnation proceeding that corporation seeking to condemn was an illegal combination. Oregon-Washington R. & Nav. Co. v. Wilkinson, 188 Fed. 363. Purchase of controlling stock in competitive corporation held invalid, but not to prevent a sale thereof in good faith. Steele v. United Fruit Co., 190 Fed. 631. Regulation of trade not the same as restraint of trade. U. S. v. John Reardon & Sons Co., 191 Fed. 454. Purchaser of goods can not defend against suit for purchase price on the ground that the seller is engaged in violating the law. International Harvester Co., v. Oliver, 192 Fed. 59. As to Harvester Co., see U. S. v. International Harvester Co., 214 Fed. 987. A contract between a long distance telephone company and a local one for exclusive interchange of messages legal. Pacific Tel. & Tel. Co. v. Anderson, 196 Fed. 699. A holding to the contrary. U. S. Telephone Co. v. Central Union Tel. Co., 202 Fed. 66, 122 C. C. A. 86. affirming same styled case, 171 Fed. 130. A defendant convicted of violating the statute may nevertheless sell its trade-mark. WeymanBruton Co. v. Old Indian Snuff Mills, 197 Fed. 1075. The