ment, since every active member is strength ening his position in preparation for an ulti mate withdrawal at the psychological mo ment. IV, An interesting plot to hold up the market is seen in Pacific Factor Company r. Adler (90 Cal. no). In that case the declaration was that the defendant agreed to deliver to plaintiff company, or their order, whatever number of grain bags up to 187,500 the said company should call on him to deliver until Jan. i, 1889, on payment to him of seven and one-half cents for each bag; and defendant agreed not to sell to any one other than the plaintiff. The defence was that the plaintiff entered into contracts with other holders of grain bags in all respects similar to the con tract made with the defendant to the amount of 30,000,000 bags, with intent to monopolize the market. Motion was made for non-suit upon the following facts: The entire number of bags in the State on the i6th day of May, 1888, and which would arrive prior to Janu ary i, 1889, amounted to 42,000,000; that the annual demand for bags was 32,000,000; and that the plaintiff entered into this "scheme" or "plan" to obtain the control of these 42,000,000 bags, and in pursuance of said plan by contract did actually secure the control of 30,000,000 of these bags from the owners and holders thereof. Mr. Justice Garoutte affirmed the non-suit. Extracts from his opinion show his argu ment : "The plaintiff did not purchase the bags; at the same time, by the rigor of its contract, it prevented the owners from sell ing them. It is clear this 'scheme' or 'plan' was devised, and these contracts entered into, for the purpose of removing all competition, and thereby compelling the farmers to pur chase bags from plaintiff, at a price in excess of their real value. Plaintiff controlled threefourths of all the bags which were in the State, or which would arrive within the ensu ing six months. It held the bag market in
its hands, for competition was gone, and the price demanded must be paid. These agree ments were not entered into for the purpose of aggregating capital, nor for greater facili ties in the conducting of their business, nor for the protection of themselves by a reason able restraint upon active competitors, but for the purpose of regulating, controlling and withholding the supply of bags, and thereby to take an unjust advantage of the farmers' necessities, by disposing of the fruits of its unlawful labors at an unreasonable advance in price." Cummings v. Union Blue Stone Company (164 N. Y. 401) is higher finance, perhaps, but it is the same thing in last analysis. The evidence was to the effect that in 1887 the plaintiff and fourteen other persons were the producers of nearly the whole product of Hudson River blue stone,. and of at least 90 per centum of the whole amount of such stone sold in the New York market to cus tomers in various States east of the Missis sippi River, and that their yearly sales amounted to upward of $1,500,000. Owing to competition among themselves, their profits had for some time been practically nominal; accordingly, with the intent to in crease their profits, and to secure to each of said producers such part of the sales as his usual production bore to the whole produc tion, they entered into the agreement in question, with the defendant, the Union Blue Stone Company. It was thereby agreed that this company should act as their sales agent of all the marketable blue stone, manufac tured and unmanufactured which the market would take for the six years from that date at prices to be fixed by the Blue Stone Association should apportion the sales among the producers according to a schedule set forth in the contract, and should sell for no other parties. The producers agreed to sell no stone except through such agent, and, acting as the. Blue Stone Association, to fix the prices, and each to furnish, upon the re
