NOTES OF RECENT CASES consequence, a somewhat different problem of con struction, but it must be assumed that the law, as it is allowed to stand, requires teaching in a different locality. The main point of the decision is supported by authority. It would have been interesting if the court had intimated how such legislation affects a trust or endowment fund created expressly for the common education of the two races. E. F. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW. (Right to Contract — Wages.) Indiana Sup. Ct. — In Seeleyville Coal & Mining Co. v. McGlosson, 77 N. E. Rep. 1044, a statute requiring employers engaged in mining and manufacturing to pay their em ployees at least once every two weeks the amount due for labor, and further requiring that the pay ment shall be in lawful money of the United States and that any contract to the contrary shall be void, is upheld as against contentions that it interferes with the right of contract and is in contravention of a provision of the bill of rights prohibiting the general assembly from granting to any citizen or class privileges which on the same terms do not equally belong to all other citizens. The statute involved is distinguished from that which was held invalid in the Republic Iron Co. v. State, 160 Ind. 379, 66 N. E. 1005, where it was held that the statute involved in. that case deprived both the employer and employee of the right to contract for employment unless they did so upon condition that the wages earned by the employee should be paid weekly. Under the provisions of the statute involved in the pres ent case the requirement to pay at the time pre scribed by the statute only becomes mandatory on the employer on the demand of the employee to whom the wages are due and owing, so his right under the law to semi-monthly make a demand for the amount of wages then due him, is a matter wholly optional with him. As a consequence of this there is no interference with his right to contract or with that of his employer. Inasmuch as the statute operates equally upon all persons who come within the class to which it applies it is held that it is not a denial of the equal protec tion of the laws and it was also declared that the classification is reasonable and proper. In sup port of its holding the court cites the following cases in which similar legislation has been upheld: Shaffer v. Union, etc. Co., 55 Md. 74; State v. Peel Splint Coal Co., 36 W. Va. 802, 15 S. E. 1000, 17 L. R. A. 385; In re Opinion of Justices, 166 Mass. 589, 44 N. E. 625, 34 L. R. A. 58; Commonwealth v. Hillside Coal Co. (Ky.) 58 S. W. 441; Common wealth v. Reinecke Coal Mining Co. (Ky.) 79 S. W. 287; Skinner v. Garnett Gold Mining Co. (C. C.)
571
96 Fed. 735; St. Louis, etc. Ry. Co. v. Paul, 64 Ark. 83, 40 S. W. 705, 37 L. R. A. 504, 62 Am. St. Rep. 154, and authorities cited; Leep v. St. Louis, etc. R. R. Co., 58 Ark. 407, 25 S. W. 75, 23 L. R. A. 264, 41 Am. St. Rep. 109; Avent Beattyville Coal Co. v. Commonwealth, 96 Ky. 218, 28 S. W. 502, 28 L. R. A. 273.
CONTRACTS. (Illegality _ Restraint of Trade.) Ky. Court of App. — In Clemons v. Meadows, 94 Southwestern 13, suit was brought on a con tract between competing proprietors of hotels in a town, whereby one of them agreed to keep his hotel closed for three years, reserving the right to rent the same for offices and to roomers, and whereby the other agreed to pay a specified sum monthly to the former during the three years. This would seem on its face to be a valid contract in partial restraint of trade, such as the courts uniformly uphold, but is nevertheless declared to be in contravention of public policy and unenforceable. The court points out that the cases in which contracts in partial restraint of trade have been held legal are cases where parties sold their trade or business together with good will. Cases where a merchant sells to his partner or to a stranger, or where a professional man with an established business sells it and the vendor as part of the consideration agrees not to engage in the business for a time, are of this vari ety. In such cases, however, the court argues the agreement does not contemplate that the business or trade purchased shall be discontinued, and persons whose services are necessary to carry on the trade or business thus thrown out of em ployment, and likewise the agreement, does not have the effect of depriving the public of any benefits which it has enjoyed from the conduct of the business or pursuit of the trade which has been transferred to another. Such contracts do not have the effect of destroying the competi tion which previously existed. The contract under consideration, the court says, is to be dif ferentiated from the ones mentioned on more than one ground. First, it is pointed out that hotels are established and maintained for the purpose of serving the public, and consequently are to be regarded as quasi public institutions. It is also argued that in the contract under con sideration, competition is destroyed and the busi ness is discontinued so that laborers are thrown out of employment and the public deprived of the benefits which would accrue should the com petition continue. Under these views, the con tract is declared to be in violation of public policy. It would seem that if the contract had been made,
