218
THE GREEN BAG
parties outside of the combination, and what seems to them another state of things where an outside party is injured solely by the pressure of the members of an associa tion upon each other. It is urged here for the last time that what one may do alone, he may join with others to do. But this is not a safe course of reasoning, as has already been seen. Therefore the cases that pre sent this difference should be scrutinized to see if there really is any such distinction as that which has been attempted. The leading case of this sort that is de cided for the combination is Bohn Manu facturing Company v. Hollis, 54 Minn. 223. A large number of retail lumber dealers formed a voluntary association, by which they mutually agreed that they would not deal with any manufacturer or wholesale dealer who should sell lumber directly to consumers not dealers, at any point where a member of the association was carrying on a retail yard; and they provided in their by-laws that, whenever any wholesaler dealer or manufacturer made any such sale, the secretary should notify all the members of the fact. The plaintiff, a wholesaler, having made such a sale directly to a customer, the secretary threatened to send notice of the fact, as provided in the by-laws, to all the members of the association. The opinion of Mr. Justice Mitchell is such interesting reading that a long extract may be pardoned: "The case presents one phase of a subject which is likely to be one of the most important and difficult which will con front the courts during the next quarter of a century. This is the age of associations and unions, in all departments of labor and business for purposes of mutual benefit and protection. Confined to proper limits, both as to end and means, they are not only lawful, but laudable. Carried beyond those limits, they are liable to become dangerous agencies for wrong and oppression. Be yond what limits these associations or com binations cannot go, without interfering with the legal rights of others, is the problem
which, in various phases, the courts will doubtless be called frequently to pass upon. There is, perhaps, danger that, influenced by such terms of illusive meaning as 'monop olies,' 'trusts,' 'boycotts,' 'strikes,' and the like, they may be led to transcend the limits of their jurisdiction, assume that, on general principles, they have authority to correct or reform everything which they may deem wrong, or, to manage the State. Now, when reduced to its ultimate analysis, all that the retail lumber dealers, in this case, have done, is to form an association to protect themselves from sales by wholesale dealers or manufacturers, directly to con sumers or other non-dealers, at points where a member of the association is engaged in the retail business. The means adopted to effect this object are simply these: They agree among themselves that they will not deal with any wholesale dealer or manufac turer who sells directly to customers, not dealers, at a point where a member of the association is doing business, and provide for notice being given to all their members whenever a wholesale dealer or manufac turer makes any such sale. That is the head and front of defendant's offense. It will be observed that defendants were not proposing to send notices to any one but members of the association. There was no element of fraud, coercion, or intimidation, either towards plaintiff or members of the association." Another rather extraordinary case to the same effect is Brewster v. Miller's Sons Com pany, roí Ky. 368. This was a suit against the members of the Funeral Directors' As sociation of Louisville. On the tenth of December, 1893, the wife of the plaintiff Brewster died. He went to the defendants, C. Miller's Sons, to engage their services and to buy articles necessary for her burial They refused to accept employment or fur nish the articles necessary for that purpose, because, as they claimed, the plaintiff was indebted to them in the sum of $52 for burying his father. The other defendants
