222
THE GREEN BAG NOTE
So far as the present search has gone, the state of the authorities upon the principal point under discussion is here summarized by jurisdictions for the convenience of the reader. The problem is whether it is unfair competition for a combina tion to insist that there shall be no dealings with its rivals. The plaintiff thus injured in his business was given a remedy in:— GEORGIA: Brown & Allen v. Jacobs Pharmacy Co., 115 Ga. 429; INDIANA: Jack son v. Stanfield, 137 Ind. 592; MASSACHUSETTS: Martelle v. White, 185 Mass. 255; MISSOURI: Walsh v. Ass'n of Master Plumbers, 97 Mo. App. 280; NEW JERSEY: Barr v. Essex Trades Council, 53 N. J. Eq. 101; OHIO: Matteson v. L. S. & M. S. Ry., 3 Ohio Dec. 524; TENNESSEE: Bailey v. Master Plumbers' Ass'n, 103 Tenn. 99; TEXAS: Olive v. Van Patten, 7 Tex. Civ. App. 630; VERMONT: Boutwell v. Marr, 71 Vt. i; WISCONSIN: Harwarden v. Youghiogheny Coal Co., in Wis. 545. The defendants were not held liable in : — COLORADO: Master Builders' Ass'n v. Domascio, 16 Col. App. 25; KENTUCKY: Brewster v. Miller's Sons Co., 101 Ky. 368 (but see Standard Oil Co., v. Doyle, 82 S. W.27i); MINNESOTA: Bonn Mfg. Co. v. Hollis, 54 Minn. 223; RHODE ISLAND: McCauley Bros. v. Tierney, 19 R.I. 255; WEST VIRGINIA: Transportation Co. v. Standard Oil Co., 50 W. Va. 611. In certain jurisdictions the decisions are hard to reconcile: — ENGLAND, up to the time of Quinn v. Leatham, 1901 A. C. 495, was not opposed to
such action by a combination (cf. Boots Co. v. Grundy, 82 L. T. 769); but it now seems that the particular issue here involved would fall under the rule of this latest case and be decided against the combination. SCOTLAND: The same observa tions apply to Scottish Cooperative Soc. v. Glas gow Fleshers' Ass'n, 35 Sc. Law Reporter 645, which was decided for the defendants, while Allen v. Flood, 1898 A. C. i, was still good law. NEW YORK: The courts, upon the whole, have fa vored the combination in late years (see Park v. Wholesale Druggists' Ass'n, 175 N.Y. i); but the latest decision is for the individual thus injured Strauss v. American Publishers' Ass'n, 177 N.Y. 473. ILLINOIS: Doremus v. Hennessy, 176 Ill. 608, would seem to cover the issue now under discus sion; but in a case now pending, Platt v. National Druggists' Ass'n, in which the action of the com bination was apparently of the most outrageous sort, an injunction was refused in Cir. Ct., Cook Co. reported Ch. L. News, Feb. 4th, 1905. It should also be mentioned that general clauses in anti-trust statutes giving an individual special remedies for injuries caused by a combination are being interpreted to cover just the sort of case now under discussion; this, for example, is true in the four cases from the federal courts subjoined, in which the wrong to the plaintiff was recog nized: Montague v. Lowry, 193 U. S. 38; Aiken v. Wisconsin, 25 Sup. Ct. Rep. i; Atlanta v. Chat tanooga Pipe Co., 101 Fed. 900; Ellis v. Inman, Poulsen & Co., 131 Fed. Rep. 18a.
