*1 Rawleigh 1926} Land et al. duty not the It except thereof. judgment subdivisions wias in would what each subdivision in sheriff advance
of the bring. to estimate contemplated would that French have been Nor could it figures would be- at upon such subdivision start his bids Therefore, judgment high the court. his the come bids under all any event, until sub- necessary, sheriff to in for the wait was could tentatively off before he deter- struck divisions had been aggregate separate bids were mine whether the of the or not judgment. When equal to or in of the amount excess they up, that did those bids were added and it seen equal French, judgment, the in substantial amount the then effect, compliance agreement, in made a bid be- with his ordered, he, judgment, to return cause sheriff fully unquestionably the execution true that satisfied. It was judgment purpose main of this recital in the that enough bring adopted by sale should debt. The course purpose. the sheriff and French effected this It difficult to compliance judgment see how other method of with the could have been worked out. being judgment by consent, obligations par-
This governed by ties assumed applicable therein the rules to con- general, tracts par- and “it is self-evident that whatever accept performance ties see fit to regarded by as a will so bet J., Kinsey, courts.” 13 C. 674. Butterworth v. See also: 495. question have ac- quiesced in sale, execution, this manner for half a century. Evidently, considered the action of sheriff being and French as compliance substantial with terms judgment.
We question recommend the third certified answered in the case, affirmative. Since settles this we recommend questions the other remain unanswered. opinion answering Appeals of the Commission of certified questions adopted and ordered certified Court Civil Appeals. Cureton, C. M. Justice. Chief
W. T. v. B. B. et al. February 3,
No. 4247. Decided (279 W., ) BY APPEALS. COMMISSION OF Agreement—Contract. 1.— contemplation purchases An of future sales Vol. parties thereto where the did in itself vendor constituted n anything, purchaser sell, buy except nor the
not bind himself *2 wholly contingent they to do so. It should thereafter determine was buy on in and their decision the to sell on the terms stated future to agreement, obligation. (P. 325.) their no in which alone created and no —Contract—Suspicious 2. Provisions. agreement language thought the use conceal an indicates of to Such scrutiny provision A close of terms. for the renewal invites its of and dealings year year only dealings their are from to if the far conducted so agreeable” “mutually obligation, contains .veiled creates but a no dealings buyer only that the threat will continue if the conducts his (P. 326.)
business in such a seller. manner as suits the —Same—Salesmanship 3. Literature —Conduct Business. of agreement provision a to in the The intent of such seller buyer only “salesmanship literature” considered the to be furnish advisory,” instructions” and as “orders bind- “educational and and ing in him connection with one that the business is to be renewed on only “mutually agreeable,” if and continued terminated at and any seller, by interpreted the will the literature time at is to be parties carrying agree- out furnished and the such so ment. Where in acts (cid:127) territory by buyer was these the restricted to limited a limit's, compete beyond resales and to evidence his forbidden such by competition, an disclosed of intent such instrument limit for- to by (Rev. Stats., 19Í1, the bidden anti-trust laws of Arts. the State. Code, 7799, 7807; 1466.) (Pp. 326-328.) Art. Penal 4. Commerce. —Same—Inter-state agreement by conducted under it the the and the business Since only bought buyer received to related the sales of after by property, of him in the State became his element appeared applica- interstate commerce the transaction to forbid any appeared anti-trust If tion of the laws of the it was too indirect State. (Pp. 329.) power. remote oust the to State’s Illegal in Part.
5.—Consideration by purchaser, renewal promise in consideration of of his con- A previous year, sums transactions all due on his another to tract for was underlying such the unlawful consideration indebted- so mixed with illegal part it consideration in has render invalid —since a to ness as (P. 329.) effect. —Illegal Contract —Guarantors. being felony, guarantors illegal, declared a a contract Where liability principal performance relieved from as their well its of 331.) (Pp. 330, enforcement. its Liability Executed —Illegal on Transaction. Contract — only upon illegal an maintained can be action Where already prevent executed does not been fact it has 331.) illegality (P. availing as a defense. from himself defendant et al. 1926} Co. v. Land
BY SUPREME COURT. 8.—Anti-trust Law —Evasion—Unlawful Contract —Case Stated. pur- sell A written neither bound the seller to nor buy anything, contemplation to future chaser continuous but was made of such furnishing them, provided for transactions between buyer literature,” merely, “salesmanship advisory seller to restricting buyer and not as orders. his others yet It contained no territory forbidding compete resales him with certain beyond compete own; it or others to with him sales within his dealings buyer as the continuance of the seller agree- party mutually terminated at the will of if either not found able, “salesmanship dealings literature” and the course of be- parties contemplated tween the a restriction the limits within which buyer resell, contract, light of the re- construed necessary becoming stricted business so carried continuance, attempted condition of its is to be taken as evasion the anti-trust laws State and an unlawful transaction on which
n norecovery 331.) price (P. could be had the seller for the so sold. *3 District, Error Appeals to the Court of Civil for the Sixth appeal in an Fannin County. from Rawleigh
The W. T.
principal
Co. sued Land as
and G. W.
Skinner,
guarantors.
Judg-
R. Bobo
G.
and J. T. Graham as
defendants,
ap-
ment was rendered for
and was affirmed on
peal
plaintiff
(
Thomas P. Black, Black & and Chas. L. plaintiff in error. original changed
A valid contract cannot be or modified illegal subsequent appearing, and invalid contract. It there fore, original written contract between the entirely legal, subsequent negotiations, valid con sisting sending letters, booklets, guide pamphlets, of of. the books, etc., containing suggestions imposing restrictions laws, cannot violative the anti-trust be considered as modi changing original Bonner, fying or valid Cain v. contract. Texas, 299; Floyd Patterson, Texas, 202; 108 v. 72 Hazwell Blake, W., 1125; Bottling Co., v. Troth v. Millville 98 West, Atl., 435; 386; Brockett, Ark., Tucker v. 29 Crossett v. Atl., 5; McCurdy Dillon, W., 746; Curry, 98 NV v.Ware Ala., Page 274; Contracts, Edition, 67 2469; Second 2458- Secs. Contracts, 1073, 1863, 1071, 1075;
Elliott on Secs. Lemon, W., v.Co. 683. Vol. sale, by make a contract of virtue of which shipped from one state to an- and delivered are to any right, other, federal and unaffected is a unregulated sale, every law; term state and the contract and each sale, provision immune from the contract state regulation. inapplicable to laws of Texas are anti-trust constituting Albertype transaction interstate commerce. Feist, Texas, 219; Vegetable Co. v. Dr. Koch Tea Co. Bakeries, Malone, W., 662; Lyons System v. Federal Fed., cited; and cases v. Bon- Dahnke-Walker Co. durant, S., 282; Chesapeake Fuel U. United States Fed., 93, Fed., affirmed, 610; Remedy Sioux Cope, S., Remedy Cope, 103 N. Sioux Co. v. 235 U. Dry McCall Co. v. A. Stiff Goods Alabama, Patrick Deschamps, & v.Co. 129 N. Dozier v. S., Colley, S., York U. U. holding plaintiff The court erred in in error was not entitled to recover virtue of new written agreement signed by August, the defendant Land in error error, plaintiff after had he do business ceased to with writing ap which new contract defendant error Land proved new, the account of the in error and made a separate distinct and ac the amount of the count, representing goods shipped the value of the de by plaintiff livered to him in error and retained him. Young Beardsley, Paige, 93; Way man Anv. Co. Weasin ger, Pac., 1022; Trevino, Texas, 93; De *4 Leon Hall Edwards, W., v. Casey-Swasey Co., S. 168. Biccochi v. Texas, 251; Texas, Building Jones, Cotton States v. Co. Contracts, Elliott Hughes, on Section McCall Co. 59 Southern, 795.
Cunningham, Lipscomb,; McMahon & for defendants in error. books, communications, letters, etc., papers, issued appellant Land, the defendant, and sent out it to the -B. B. admissible, generally, tending and to its retailers to as placed by show appellant the construction the on the business in, engaged they furnishing was were also admissible as light contract, on positions the relative of the suggestion power to uncover the to dictate a mere part the appellant, of the R. etc. Caddle v. J. Watkins Medi Co., W., 229; Newby Rawleigh Co., cal 227 S. T. S W. Rawleigh 1926] et Co. al. Myers, W., 1177;
W., 1174, J. R. Watkins Co. 194 S. W., 1005. S. goods sold, being price the defense
In the the case for plaintiff the the court violated the Anti-Trust that below Texas, finding jury a of the to the effect Act State of agreed plaintiff the the defendant contracted or that territory principal the the defendant to sell the which shipped restricted, requires him to defendant; trial the court enter a to favor Texas, requires under law of State of the settled being appellate judgment, affirm such courts to there evidence requiring questions, in the record the submission of such even the seller out of where lives state and the transaction is an Statutes, Sayles’ inter-state one. Vernon’s Annotated Civil inclusive; Newby Articles 7796 to 7818 W. T. Raw- leigh Co., W., 1173; Co., Whisenent v. Shores-Mueller Caddall J. R. Watkins W., T. Smith, W. S. J. R. Watkins Myers, v.Co. being question as to
On whether the case interstate exempt commerce is from therefore the Texas Anti-Trust Laws, we refer the court to: v. Watkins Caddall Med. W., 239; Fuqua, Brewing Co., Hinkle Davis v. & Pabst plain printed terms of
Under is in appellant power hands of the the absolute dictate suggestion. words, provisions mere In other with above give appellant company power curtail delivered, amount of to terminate the contract at any time, whereby all of then the indebtedness accrued under immediately payable, such contract become would due and we provisions letters, papers, contend that such make communi- cations, by appellant ap- instructions kind sent though pellee binding signed part were a appellee obeyed contract. If the had not assented instructions, acquiescence. he would have been coerced into such complete
It therefore follows in order to ascertain parties, contract between the under which after- the sale was made, only contract, wards we must look not to the written *5 imposed printed but also the conditions in literature by appellant sent to Land and the latter assented to observed. agreement
Under the between and defendant Supreme Court Vol. 115. complete question was a direct sale of the in sale, plaintiff; defendant when and as result came into the hands of defendant and were broken original packages from their sale, they and offered for lost their character of interstate commerce and therefore became subject to the Anti-Trust Act of Texas.
The contract absolutely this case is void under Anti- Trust Texas, Act of and could not have been under cir- cumstances appellee ratified Contracts, Simpkins Land. on Ed., page 3rd Sittig, Davis v. Judge opinion NICKELS delivered the of the Commission Mr. Appeals, Section A.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE. Suit was filed Company, the W. T. an Illinois cor- poration, against Land, principal, B. B. Skinner, and W.G. G. R. Bobo and Graham, J. guarantors, T. in the District Court County, Fannin the-day of---, on 1923, to recover alleged a debt provided to have been for in the instruments alleged considered. The defendants that an existed company, between the hand, remaining on the one and the defendants, other, on the of such nature as to be in violation of laws, rendering state anti-trust thus the contract unen- forceable. jury response special to a issue found that Land territory making goods. to defined
restricted sales of his judgment Thereupon was rendered for the defendants. This rendered, then, upon was first reversed and rehear- ing, Appeals affirmed Court Civil Sixth District. S. W. involving questions is in the
The case legality of the contract.
OPINION. contemporaneously paper with which relations 1. The began W., 186), (quoted in full merely paragraphs. The first is formal. contains ten numbered except that contained in is made The last declares no naturally remaining parts instrument, fall into one etc. The groups, will be considered or the other of two order. purchase, desire to three state Land’s
(a) Paragraphs two and “agreement sell,” f. company’s o.. b. wholesale” “at *6 325 et Land al. Co. v. agreed point Memphis, Tenn, any “at Freeport, other or or shall products seller upon,” “such of its manufactured buyer” at “current whole- sell then hereafter determine to to said optional prices,” quantity is to be “kind and of which sale According Five, Paragraph seller “the with the said seller.” to etc, buyer wagon,” option a “for cash” will at its sell to also “buyer” then, per purchases, or terms on credit. If so Four, “agrees price.” Paragraph he to the seller the invoice Paragraph provided any In is party may, 6 it that either at * * * by notice, time agreement.” written terminate this Paragraph Eight “agreement” Company evidences to buy back may from Land such as “he have on hand” if during immediately Land returns them or after “the life of the contract.” As paragraphs “agreement” context of the other this purely contingent upon is party, the will of either for Land could Company agrees have no “on hand” unless the first to sell agrees buy. to respect purchases goods, etc, to foregoing In includes “agreements” supposed all of “obligations” of the “con- provisions, tract.” obviously, Those only If, mean this: in the future, purchase something Land desires to Company, from the it, and then orders Company will then determine whether it n anything Land; desires to sell if it decides to sell him some- thing, it quantity” will then decide the “kind and of what sell, price cares to credit; and whether “for or cash” on purchase if Land then still quantity” desires to that “kind and price terms, so, provided at that and on those he do change does its mind at the last moment. far, paper paper nothing obliga- Thus is more. No —and anything any at any- sell time or terms —or tion on to do thing Company, buy else—is laid nor is Land bound to all, right anything do whatever. No at created and no obligation exactly parties is declared. are left where required except move before. Neither at his own Hence, contract here. will. nothing contract,
“It is more than to enter into a future, agree in the to contract.” if the can then Weegham Fed., Killifer, can And no of action v. Phelps, App., predicated on it. Civ. Williams Holmes, Bogle, W., 673; App., Hume v. Bean Civ. App., v. Emerson Shoe Civ. Gordon Fed., 77; A., 114 v. Nut Cold Blast T. C. C. Co. Ed., 955; Wall., 339, Ripley, 19 L. Rutland Marble Co. A., Fed., 198, Ewing, L. R. Metropolitan Exhibition Co. Yol. 381; Bijur Eclipse Co., Fed., 604; Manning Ayers, Fed., 690, A., Stagg Compton, Ind., 171; 23 C. C. J., 100-1; Cyc., Contracts, 13 C. Secs. Elliott Vol. *7 Sec. 175. spectacle But solemnly of men covenanting thus about
nothing transparent folly. involves more than It indicates use language thought. this, to conceal turn, And in invites close scrutiny of paper. what is left of the
(b) Paragraph dealings seven declares that “if conducted hereunder mutually agreeable,” are may a “new contract” be year. This, made for course, the next wholly sense, is without if attempt right obligation; considered as an but, to define a or warning as a threat and happen of what will unless Land con- “agreeably” ducts himself “satisfactorily” and it has a measure prophetic application things of reason. Its appearing. is to next (with The exception noted) balance of the instrument an to be nine, paragraph is in which reads thus: mutually “It is understood that the seller will furnish the buyer, time, salesmanship from time to with educational litera- consisting Rawleigh’s Weekly, Book, ture booklets, bulletins, leaflets, Guide and other suggestions,
and letters of advice and aiding making purpose assisting buyer for the sole and collections; agreed nothing expressly sales and but it is con- any literature, letters, booklets, tained in of the aforesaid bulle- tins, leaflets, etc., alter, modify, any shall be taken in wise to this, change, agreement, only considered or affect shall advisory; expressly under- and it is further as educational and agreed any suggestions contained advice or stood buyer orders, directions therein is not to considered being way binding him; mutu- instructions, or ally nor in not, agreed buyer fully is that the understood and said seller, been, agent representative but an or never has nor strictly for theirself.” in business Company “edu- to furnish promise expressed Here is an time,” Land, “from time to salesmanship literature” to
cational “literature” promise receive the implied Land to plainly and a his suggestions” connection with ponder “advice and agreement coupled the this mutual business. To resale proviso, suggestions” be considered are not to that “advice meaning, course, binding proviso, of without on Land. The prima facie self-serving except intent as a declaration of whose patent by the value, any, greatly diminished if evidential destroyed (or turned wholly rather efforts at concealment and Co. v. Land et al. against parties) if, fact, the the purpose appears a bad agreement. the ingless, say execution of the We it is otherwise mean- obligated because buy, Land was not at all nor was Company sell; bound consequently, the “literature” could present “binding” have no against effect as his will. purpose declared furnish, receive and
consider the “literature” is to making “aid and assist” Land in sales, etc., bought as he Company. have If the suggested communication doing advised or or omis- by Land, sion of and, acts thereupon, thereof, reason he acts, decided to do those between him and the accomplished. Company says to Land: “We mutually interested in your business; success of we agreed long ago duty that it was our you, to advise suggestions, you make hence, so making sales; as to aid and assist you we believe will make more thereby or better sales and *8 money us, make more you for all of if will so, do thus and and we, therefore, right, duty of our interest, virtue and advise suggest you thing.” and do that stay Land desires to in business. Company, law, right (which virtue of has the it also this, words) will, declared in to terminate relations at and of knowledge. remembers, also, Land has He already “agreeable” has said that unless he shall be and his deal- ings “satisfactory” it will year. have no business with him next thinks, also, will, He proposed the method adopted, if profit. readily (by act) redound in He contributes word and acceptance proposition suggestion new embraced in the it contemplated mutually he would do. intended What (thus agreed to) sequently appears practically ab initio inter- pretative Sattley App. conduct. v. Racine 134 State Civ. W., 400, 404; Exchange, 181, v. St., 211 109 State Livestock Mo. W., 677, Thereupon perfection 124 Am. S. arrangement provided
(contemplated in future in the and wrought. instrument) subject-matter object lawful, an
If the enforceable are unlawful, prevents purpose is made. If the obligation, enforcibility ter- it does not remove or but purpose, (combination) The true minate the itself. achievement, being clearly fully well as details its extrinsically by writing, they proof supplied defined execution, despite did in what what the said and says provisions. paper all-comprehensiveness of its about general words of employs the most of terms and instrument “suggestions” import. doubtful “advice” —what What —are 328 . Vol. Texas given except by are not defined reference to “educational salesmanship furnished, literature” to be but whose text is not' given. Nor is there an working eifort made at out the exact proposed boundaries of the “aid” and “assistance.” The true and exact sense in which the parties is, terms were used therefore, written, undisclosed —as meaning their is indefinite ambiguous. And, therefore, subject proper proof aliunde. App., Whisenant v. W., 1177, Shores-Mueller Co. Civ. 194 S. cited; Lockhart, cases Texas, 535, Dewees v. 1 Frank- Mooney, Texas, 454; lin Stamper Johnson, Texas, 4; Pryor, Texas, 342; Kelly Robb, Bender v. Brewing Co., Texas, 636; v. Dallas McKim,
Schaub 56 Rogers La Brie v. 322, App., 1083, Texas Civ. cited; cases there Broadnax, Texas, 238; Cleburne Water Works Co. Cleburne, App., 141, Texas Cyc., Civ. 588-9. signed by As to the 1917, instrument Land in and renewed in
1918, 1919, 1920, (with exception and 1921 noted) to be we Except for, conclude: provided in, paragraphs and as First — seven and did, agreement. nine it did not amount Second —It paragraphs nine, seven executory agree contain an ment, complete which became and executed parties. acts of the consummated, jury’s Third —As so made finding is con original (and continuing) clusive its unlawful purpose, which purpose, achieved, thus intended and was in violation of Articles 7796, 7798, 7799, R. S. and Article Penal Segall Texas, 55, Code. v. McCall Fuqua Brewing Co., Texas, 298, W., 479, 29, 750; Lawson, Texas, 394, T. & P. Coal Co. 34 S. W.
Brewing Texas, 277, Templeman, v. Co. App., v.
Whisenant Shores-Mueller Co. Civ. 226; App., W., Med. Caddall v. Watkins Civ. Raw leigh Watson, W., 955; Smith, Co. v. S. Co. v. W., 799; Rawleigh Newby, v. 1173. Fourth— Co. agreement This unlawful and its execution had sole reference (local County, Texas). to the methods Land’s resales to Fannin property After porated had his own and become had been incor State; property perforce, mass of in the ele aspect ment or of interstate involved. commerce was Waters- S., 99, Ct., 222, Ed., Sup. Pierce Oil v. 212 U. 53 L. Co. 425; case, Browning App., 48 S., 16; same Texas Civ. Way cross, Ry. Signal Virginia, 233 U. Co. General S., 500; Speed, S., U. American Steel Wire Co. v. U. Wheat, 419; May Orleans, Maryland, Brown v. v. New Rawleigh Co. v. Land et al. S., Parham, Wall., 123; Woodruff U. Brown v. Hous- ton, S., 114 U. respect stated, may
In conclusion last we add that if. agreement were true that did some relation exist between commerce, effect, any and interstate that connection —and if —would indirect be and too remote to power. oust the State’s purchase Even a contract of and sale of merchandise to move (such from one state into another as was under consideration Bondurant, S., 282) may Dahnke-Walker Co. 257 U. also validity, provisions enforcement, include etc., whose manner of governed by squarely are to be law. This is State determined Signal Ry. recognized Virginia, supra, in General and it is Mfg. Colley, S., in New York Co. v. 247 U. 21—cited here situation, par- In that error. test is whether the stipulation appropriate” ticular is both “relevant and —“that inherently intrastate does not lose its essential nature part of interstate because it forms an commerce contract necessary Mfg. Colley, which it has no relation.” York Co. v. Brewing Segal Fuqua Co., supra; supra; supra. McCall meaning instrument, finally nature and inter- finding, being light jury’s preted described, in the direct, “appropriate” had no the unlawful “neces- sary” It referred relation to interstate commerce. to sales of (long State) made, property at rest his own since and to made, territory of a defined be Land within State and to- residing. persons there signed by matter in the 1921 “contract” The additional * * * (in Paragraph 4) pay any “to
Land is his acceptance “at the date of the balance due” the promise contract.” This new sub- this renewal is a agreement. part stantial consideration for the unlawful illegal legal legal (if any considerations ones) inextricably mingled papers (or facts) other whereby do not furnish means unlawful considerations exclusively apportioned improper obligations so as to obligation, itself, complete supported leave a valid (if independent be). valid consideration such there .This results, general portion Paragraph 4, it within the rule considerations, promise made several “that one of unlawful, illegality no matter whether which is be at *10 by statute, (Edwards County common or void” Jen- law is nings, Texas, 618, W., 1053, 1054, and authorities there cited; Wegner Niering, Texas, 506, case, Bros. v. same 115. Vol. Texas, 144, Brewer, Reed
Texas, 506, 13 S. W., 418). “ac- and upon the “orders” one is not Company’s suit The by Land. it procured from whereby ceptances” purchase each that question, shows proof, without The made, and then “acceptance” thereof and upon “order” consign- goods of each title to the perfect complete and Tenn., Freeport, 111. Memphis, or at at passed to Land ment upon in- based, expressly, written relief claim to signed upon another described above strument “guarantors,” Graham, Skinner, Bobo, by which, by signed by Land and the one attached to physically signed by reference, incorporates specific express and Petition, part aas papers are attached These Land. the basis it, pleaded in haec verba as and are thus con- They to be “the rights. there declared are Company’s defendants, been it by has plaintiff and tract made suit, then, is substituted, changed modified.” The annulled, or value, in- sold in price, or to recover not one purely law, practice, commerce; our under terstate papers agreements those upon evidenced a suit —exe- ac- indebtedness had years much of so-called after cuted agreements rights pre-existing made under crued —and “acceptances” have been abandoned. Coles in the “orders” and Dec., 661; Bonner, Texas, 542, Kelsey, 47 Am. Cain v. Texas, 399, Having 402, declared —, 1921, matter of as a State “contracts” of Jan. so-called recovery them.” law, plaintiff’s “the measured Bonner, in- supra. papers made one and The two are Cain facts, by reference, plead- in the separable mutual shown, ing. (signed by Land) and re- one embraces “guarantors” things, quires and in the other the unlawful terms, do, “fully agree” to, assent and to “all of the made provisions agreements” evidenced the first. And but “agreement” guarantors (the “assent” and this papers proof show) the unlawful made or con- Land and would not have been summated. Law involves commission
Violation State’s Anti-Trust felony. Stat., Every per Revised Art. Crim. a etc., encourages, principal. commission of who crime is a son agree person Ibid. A who enters into a trust Arts. “understanding any character,” party “becomes ment *11 331 et al. Co. v. 19261 thereof” or in furtherance any act do or shall thereto By 1637, felony. Art. Ibid. the thereto, guilty “aid” “guarantors” required very the binds them tie which Company. guilt the It of Land and the assume and share guilt be so allocated cannot in the bond.” “nominated thus heap part of the contract and wipe from one the as to taint vice, corrupted part. is the contumely upon another all agreement, Co., supra.; Fuqua Segal v. McCall is indivisible. Brewing Co., supra. with-1 pleaded, plaintiff’s not be made out As case could aid, court, bringing the consideration of the out to its and to Hence for re transactions. there is bases unlawful covery theory (urged) “illegal contract has executed, ended.” been conduct has The situation the unlawful prop cited disclosed is one which makes the authorities osition, Edwards, (i. e. Hall v. Leon v. De Trevino, Texas, 91, Rep., 101; Bonner, Am. Cain Floyd Patterson, supra; Texas, 202; Blake, Haswell v. Davenport, Mont., 555, Pac., 90 S. Owens v. (N. S.) 996; Richardson, R. Ky., L. A. Martin W., 1039, A., 692, Rep. 353; 19 L. R. Hertz Am. Geigley, Pa., 419, Atl., ler 724; Rep., 79 Am. St. Mulligan, Pac., App., 116,
Hubbard v. 13 Colo. Byrd, C., Packard E., 678, (N. S.) L. R. A. 547) condemn, support (Art. 7437, rather than it. The statute 1925) R. S. declares such contract or to “be absolutely equity.” void and not enforcible either in law or all-pervading That force of the law has been contemned broken, rightly tempered, by anything exhibited in this record. judgment.
We recommend an affirmance opinion Mr. Chief delivered CURETON Justice Supreme Court.
Consideration of the facts us that the written convinces parties, contracts interpreted light between the practices actual them, prepared signed purpose violating the Anti-Trust Laws this State State, within the obligations and that arose in consum- mating purpose. this This leads to our concurrence in the opinion of the Appeals Court of rehearing Civil on motion for recommendation that of the Court of Civil Appeals affirmed, ordered. so'