Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion

House Bill JJo. 231, pro9idlnC thst It it conflicts oith State anti-trust laws it shnll bo null end void hold in aohfllct with such anti-trunt Iswe and there: l-or0 invalid. --^- _ -- _-_- - OFFICE C!PTRD ATTORIGY C'i~DX~L June 28, 1939 conorableW. Lae,O'Daniel Governorof Tcxss hustin,Texas ODlnion Do. o-lC33 Cl: Vnlidity of Route Bill Do. 231 We hsvo for ackuowled~~ant your l~ettcrof Juuc 22, 1939, wheroln you eck the opi.nionof this Dcpnrtmnt upon certain qu?stiox rolatla:j to tha vnlldity of IlouseDill iio.231, the *fair trade*'Act, the questions oo!:cdbeing as l'ollows: "1. Does the Caption of the bill, under the Constitution, enfficlcntly set out the purpose and cover the subfect mttrr of the bill? I call your particular uttention to that part or the Cnption which says that it la for the purpose of protcctinC tmdc-x?rk omors, diotributors and the Ccncrol pub- 110 o~aiunt injurious and uncconoxic practices in tho distribution of articles of standard quality undor diotlnCuished tmdemrk, brand or nane, etc., and would like for you to advise ~19 if this in sui- fioiently consistent with the seation of the bill deali% with the subject and if it does, in fact, amply with the Constitution in @vine notice of the oontents of the bill? Plcnsc also mska your nnswer applioable'to each and eoery part of the Caption. *2. Is there any pmoision of the Act in its purpose end final result in confliot tith Chapter 3, Title 19 of t?e Penal Oode of this State, or with Title 120 of tho Revleed Civil Statutes of 19257 qn ooaneatlon dth the above I anderstand that tlkm 16 ‘h q&egitiou 08 to wlmthcror not the almyr kind 0f~c0ntreot6’0ont~p~ut0a in thb Act aro in violationor some nati-truststetuts. Ir the oontraota describedare not ia vlolstlonof the statute.it would becoae difficultto understandthe Purposeof this Act. "3. If the manufacturer or other peroon sclliu~ to a dealer in Texas enter into a cootreot with hln wiith'the provlrions stated, and he aCroon and obliCatea himself to oell the Coo& at a price stipulated by such mnufncturer, or other person, does ho, by reason Iron.F. Loo C'Dsnicl, June 20, 1930, l?zCo2. of this Act or euch contr-ct. hwc my protection acninst such n4anufoctuicr or ot!lcrn~roon i'urnichinc [:oods to cnothcr ~lrchont in the o&c vicinity for Gal0 at fldil'foront price, or no price at oil? In other words, if one local dcolcr LC-kes a contract forthc purchnao of co%.oditioo for rennle with the mnufocturor and arreec to sell the::at a fixed price, can hc by the term of this bill h,jvu nn opreormnt in hia contract thct the rmnufncturcr will not sell to one of bit coxJP?titorsct 0 different price, or no Eircd price? If such provision should bo in the contract vtould it be a lawful provision.? "4. I would like for you to cdvice no the mooning and effect of Paragraph 2 of Seotion 1, recd- ine as follo,xi: 'That v~ilfully'and knoiirin$yofferin; for salt or cellinS any cor3aodityat less than the tninixnd price ntipulotcd in any contract cntercd into pursuant to tho proricions of this Act, whether the per-on eo offcri~ for. sale or sellin;. is or is not a party to such contract, in unfair co!lpetitionand is action- able nt the.suit of any person dnna::cdtbora- by. ...' "Do you consider this lan!:u:rco cufficiently defi- nite and ccrtein-to bc binding7 "5. Ilocco advise *co in Pcrticulnr if pnro~rcph 3 of Section 2 is in violation of any Sedoral levror, if effcctivc, uould it onend, uodify or repeal any of'the Anti-Truut 1~~s of the Stats of Terns? "6. Is any portion of said Act in conflict \;lth the Constitution end law of the IlnitcdCtntcc or of the stntn or TCXC87" Sincc.uz hnvo reached the conclusion that House Bill Do. 231 is'in contrnvcntion of and conflicts 74th the anti-trust l~vlsof the State of Texas, and thercforc, by virtue of the PrOViSiOns of Section 7 of House Bill No. 231, is 0 nullity and of no force or effect whatoocver, It becozss unneceescry ct this tin0 to enSaS In the extensive study neccosary in order to enable us lntelli~ently to ensv!erother quostlono of const1tutlonolity ana statutory construction proeonted 10 your inquiry. We-have presentcd in thie House Bill emote& by the ,Je&lelatureai the Stite'oi Texm the novel aa& peoullar rltustfonof a lecidatlve body prwldin(:that the Aot deslGn- ed to relieve oortaln types of oontracts iron tho prohlbltlons contained in the anti-trust laws of tbe State of Texas. shell be decned null and void and of no force and offcct WhntsOaVcr if it is effective to eccozpllsh the desired Purpose. IiOVCl and poculinr though thlc situation nay bc, it is neverthsleos the duty of this Dcportncnt and of all officers of the Sov- erment charged with the duty of cnforcinC such lew to Give full efEcct to the cxprocsad lntcntlon of the Le~isloturo. Section 7 of F!ouseBill No. 231 reads 0s follows: non. :‘I. Lee O~Dzc~icl,Zuno 78, 1939, I’a~o3. lWothin;:in this Act ohnll cvcr bc conotrtied as arzndin3, no::ifyin::, saspcndlnf*or rcpeslln:; any of the la::-sof this St.ato dzflnlnficm) pro- hibitinC trirts, nono~olicc, and concpiracics against trudc, viith p~rticulnr rcfcrencc to C!lapter 3, Title 19, Fenol Code cl’the Stctc of Tcms, nnd Tl.tlc126, Heviscd Civil Ctctutct of Tercs, 1925, aud if any provision of this Act is hc1.dto bc in oont~cvontion of or coni‘lictoltiiany of said lcwa, tbon said provision shall be null and void aridof no force or effect.” Sections 1, 2, 3, and 4 of DoufieBill No. 231 read as follms: “Section 1. That no contrcct rolatinC to the sale oz rcrclo of a commodity which bonrs, or the label cr cohtcnt of which bcsrs, the trade-r&ark, brand, or no::8of the producer or cri:ncrof such oomodity, nnd which is in fuir oud open coxpetl- tion v:ith coxioditicn oi”the s*r:cCcnaral class produced by others, if not in violation of Clmpter 3, Title 19, Penal Code of the State of Texas or Title 126, Rcvincd Civil Statute3 of Texgr,, 19% and if mic I’ora period not in oxc3s:iof two (21 y.:srsfro:1the date of its execution, shnl.1be dconed in violation of my I.&I; of the State of Texas by ro~coh of any of t!ic~Yollo?:ln;: provisions xay bo coctained in Each contract: vr!~ich “1. That the buyer will not resell such cora~o~ity,belo:! the mininur~ grice stipulated by the vendor. “2. That vrilfullyand knov?inClyoffer- ir;Sror sale or sellin::any comodity at less than the z&niml: Drice stipulated in any contract entered into purcuant to the provisions of this Act, whether the person so offering,for sale or sclli~ is or is not a party to such contract, lo unfair coapctition and is actiomble at the suit of any person dcxaged thereby. Tbat the vendee or produoor require any dealer% rrhozshe nay roooll such camodity to agree that ho ~~111not, in turn, resell,balm the nin5x~ruprice +xulatob by such reador or by rnab . tendee. “1. ic OlO.SinJJ OUt the Oimer’s GtOC@ for the purpose of dlscontlnulnS dellvery of any such comodlty; provided, homver. that such stock is first oficrcd to the rmmfccturcr of such stock Gt thf? O*i~iIl7ll lnvoicc price, at lenst ten (10) (Jr.ys b,,ro:.co,:c>stock shall bi: ofl’orodfor sale to the public. ”2 . Khen the Coodn are dns$Ccd or ‘dater- iorntod 111 qunlity, and notlca io ;:ivcb to the public thereof. IfOli.Y. Lot o’rl~nlol,June 2C, 1989, lnC,e4. “3. Ry any oi’ficcractin: under the ordorn or any court. ‘!EOC.3. The follozin2 terms, as urod in this Act, am hereby dafincd as follo~;s: ~~Froduccr~ mz3ns Cromr, bn?ccr,maker, manu- facturor, nor publisher. “‘Co:.>nodity’ means ony rubjoct of oozmerco. “SCC. 4. This Act shall not npply to any contraot or cqrccmont betv:ocn the produco?s or bctricenvrholcsalero or betv;sonrotallers,’a6 to sole or resale priors. It is furt!xr specificslly provided that suoh contracts betwcn said parties are horcby declared void.” Title 12G, I&vised Civil Statuteo of the Stat.0 of Texas, is the Title of our Civil Stntutos rclotinC to trusts an& conspiraoico a:rainsttrudo. The ~wovisiono of such title, applicable.to the oP.aract?r of c~rsmonta with *:ihichXouse Bill No. 231 is conoerncd, are quoted belo?~: “Article 7426 . A ‘trust’ is a oombinotion of capital, skill, or acts by t?:o or morn parsons, .firms, corporations, or oseoolations of perzons, or cith.orTao or more of the::, for cithor, nny, or all OF tho folloulnC purpocos: “1. To crents, or which may tond to create, or carry out rsatrictions in trade or oo~meroo ... or to crcato or onrry out restrictions in the free pursuit of any businoco authorized or permitted by laws of this.Etato. “2. To fix, maintain, increase, or reduce the price of’merchcndiao, produce, or commodities ... ‘c5. To arovont or lessen competition in tho manufacture, mnk,inC, trnnsportation, sale or pur- ohaso of acrohandicc, produce, or commodities ... “4. To fix or naintoin any standnrd or tiguro whcroby the price of any article or cor~lodityof morohandiso, produce, or ooFzzroo ... shall be in any manner nffootod, controlled, or established. “5.. To make, enter into, maintain, execute or carry out any contract, obligation or uCreemsnt by which the parties thereto bind, or havo bound themselves not to oell, dispose of, trans_oortor to prepnrc for riirkct or trunsportation any article or commodity ... or by whlc!rthey shsll aCrea in any manner to !ceepthe prioo of suoh article or commodity ... nt a fixed or Crndod figure, or by which they shsll in any mannor affect or maintain the price of any commodity or article ... to pre- clude a froo and unrestricted competition amonf: tberlcclvcsor others in the sale ... of any ouch article or co>!!lodity,or by :;hichthay shill aCroc to pool, co:lbine,or unite ony intorostn tboy may have in connection with the r:alaor purchase Of any article or co:-modity ... whereby its prioo or such oharp ml&. br? in any n::nncr nffcctcd. Bon. !?.Lee O’Daniol, - June CC, 1939, Face 5. “6. To rqulate, fix or l.indttho outpat of my nrticlo or co.mmodityv:hichmay be monufoctur- ed, mined, produced or sold, ... “7. To~cbstoin from enCagi.nCin or contlnuins busincos ,,or rron the purchase or sale 0r nbrchan- disc, prcduco or oo?modities psrtially or entirely within tho Stat0 of Texas, or any portion thereof.” hrticle 7429 provides as i’olla;vs: “Any and all trusts, nonopolies and oou- spiraoics in reotrnint of trade, as heroin dofined, ara prohibited and declsrod to be illeCa1.” hrticle 7430 providoo in effect ‘that tho charter of an,y corporntion c:rwtor+d under tho law of Texan which may be . euilty of violotin3 any provision of the Title 1X, may be forfeited at th? rcquost oi’tho httornsy General, if in the judcxent of tho Court trying the 0~159,the public int.erost requires such forfeiture. Article 7437 provides: “Any contract or sCroer:ont in violation of any provision of this subdivision shull be absolute- ly void and not enforcible either in low or oqulty.~~ Tha balance of Title 13!0contains msny othor provisions dotiGncd to make offectivo the prohibitions contained in subdivinion 1 of the Tit1.e. Articles 1632, lG33, 1634, oontainod in Chapter 3, Title 19, of our Fanal Code, arc but verbatim copiss of Az%icles 7426, 742.7,and 7428 ol’our Revised Civil Statutes, referred to abova. Article 1635 of our Penal Codo provides that whoever vlolntoc any provision of such Chsptor shnll be confined in ths ponitontiory not loss than two nor more than ten Years, The belanca of the Titla contains provisions not hecessnry to bo notiood in connection with the discussion involved horoin. Even a cosunl reading; of the provisions of the above statutes disclo;:csthat thoy wre dcnignod to prevent the lixir~~of prioas of artiolos of ooxxrco in any mannor by the combined efforts of tv:o or more individuals, firms, Corporations, or associations or pcrcons. Tho anti-truet lnws oonstituto a 1oCislativn reooznition that oombinstions, hzvlnC ror thoir purpo-c or effcctin;:by their acts the fir- inC of prices, nro obnoxious to the public interest, and dicplny a desire to enact ooaprohcncivo laws to render suoh i113(;ol,uncnforoiblc, and puoichoblc criminally, l’rice-l=ixin~ no rzrttorhov it may be souCht to bu ncconplishod, rrhothcr dlxotly or indir3ctly. so fer nc o:,xranti-truct 1~s condemn co-collod “VW- t.iC.11” :,uts lc~iolativc adoption price-fixin::, they ‘coilr:tituto rocoyition of the otntemnnt rondoby the SUprO:lOCOUl’t t!n:l of the United States in tho cam of Strauo VS. Victor Tnlk- in- !.:achine Co., 243 lJ. S. 490, Gl L. Ed. Oi,O, that attempts to 0011 property for o full price and yet to place rcotraints upon its lurthor olicnstion, have hem obnorioun and hstoful to the law frcilthe days of Lord Co‘ze,bcaaurs obnozioua to t!lcpublic interest. In order to'undorstsnd thoro;t::hlY thu nnturr of tho problm prosontcd in conncctio!lr:ith such lwc es the ohs under consideration, it is perhnpn cdvicablo thnt vzo rcvicw the ar~umnts ih favor of and a~alnst such 1n:vs. It is contcndcd by ndvocntos of such lo,:iolntionthat the mum- fncturer of'trsdo-marked or broddcd nrticlcs of co:mxco hao a vital intcrc::tin tho Coo3 vzill cnCendcred by the sale of such Coo& vith his brand or tmdc-sark upon thorrl;that price-cuttiaz in such goods by rct.cilorsto v/ha71 ths r*onu- fccturcr or distributor has ~olc?t!:cmresults in danaCe to the r~nufaCtul~CP'~: COO4 Uill; thst the dn:mCc thus sustained inoronoss the mnufactursr's costs and,iaRnirs his ability to nsrket his coodo and ronults in incrsaccd prices for such ,-oodsto the buyin: ~mbllo. (7 A.L.R. 453-43a). It lo argued that Vertical" price-fixing;--thatis, price-firing, on a bran&xl co:n;odityin coxpetition v!ith other branded commodities of a similar class, by a~recnont botwon the r~anufnctureror the distributor and the dealers in such cocmodity, cs to the oricas for which his coxodity alone nay be sold, is bcncficinl to tho public Ccncrelly; vrhcrcns, it is cdnittod tht '*horizontnl'price-fixing aCro-s.ntc-- that is, price-fixinC botv;ocnr:anu1eoturoro or dealers in similsr cox:odi.tissnnrmnlly in cor:petitionr&oh vith the other, is decidedly ininioul to the public Interest. On ths contrary, the arCumentc npninst such price-fixing arc phrased as folloxs by the l'odcrclTrade Carzlissionreport for the ficonl ycor ending Juno ZO, 1910: "I. The powr to fix prices will usually be abused by the OlkW2C Of too 10~ Proms; "2. Renslc prioo r~aintenanco protects and ancouracas inofficicnt jobbcrs and prevents elinina- tion in the over-crorldcdfield of r&ldlc;wn; "3. It tends to secure cooperation of Ccnlors and to prcjudicc the:4a&net brands xhose prices are not fixed; "4. It forces other dealers to atteapt the control of prices; n5. It oncournces Ccneral otandurdization of prices end elimination of normal COnpetitiOn among dedsrs; and, "6. It forcas the ultinato oonsuzsr to Roy hidhcr prices and leaves him no borPinin3 Powr with rocpect to tho article concerned." (7 A.L.R. 45s) It io, of course, tho proroeativo of tbo LcCislal;urO, in the oxercico of its conctitutiorml authority to oriCinoto such lerislo'tio:l tb!n, ana of t!loCovomor, in the crsrcise of .I.s AIo oonstitut;.onol.outhorityto vcto,or npprove, to Salonce thcco argumnt,s and concidorntions tho on0 ayalnst .tha other, ootor:linetheir validity, end to tnko such octlon es, to tllanl, eppesrs to bo in the intcrcst of the public ConerallY. In LhC Ob~O!lCO Of Oily COilstitution:~l inhi:,ition;noitber this DCPa~V:.etLt nor the courtn uould h?vc any rl.i;htful eon- corn :-At!1t!:cq~l0~3tioll of ptlbliopolJcy irvolvcd, Since t!:ur:;?to~:~;i~xtion or th?.t question or pubL!,io pa,cy is ~:ovmn xl by fioilin;:~of fact, ::nc: iJ!O?o:!i:r to r:2koSllCll fiAi::;s of f::ot is by our Comtitutlon c~01uSi~ly vOStOd in ti'.cLo~i;.lntureSnd in tho Cbi-f X:cooutlve of the St3t9. It folls:iStbct if the Act h2d uilcqL"ivocallgolesptcd r.achqyozi2:nt.o3 s nra contmplntod by it:;term fron the provisionc of the anti-trust 108s of the Stat!: of Tome, this Dcgartr.cntshouldbe concernsd only xith t:-.equmtion of its conctiV~tion2lity. The Act, hcwevor, does not mire such uocquirocal oxmption,~but cxprcssly provides tbot if t.? 0 contr:ictcsanctio;xd ty it era vior:,tivr?or t!:ose State anti-tlust lovs clreuly onzctcd rind in full force nnd cfl'c0t t!:oAct itself, not tbo imti-trus ln!Ys,r.l!all be null Sn(:1 void nnd of no force Sad ol'feot. ‘0 that it becoxos nocexi;ry for this Dzpnrtxnt r?ttho k 1tsct to conriidcrthe qxstion of vhcth.crt!E Act by 'it's own tori:3 12;a nullity, and thl:,qucttion bcin~; dutcrninzd in t:?o affir3stire, Soy quOtAion of conotitutiocclify baoozos rloot. By nu::::rousdocioionn in tho St.nteof Texas, our courts have detcr:.:icaii t!xL 03r Stat.0anti-trust lo?;Sro:ld3r absolutely n:lllant:void VSrtionl" pl.lcc-fixfnf; cqroezzonts ontwcd into b:lt!:cen xionufucturors or dir?.ri~ultors ond re- tailers, :;heri;bythe rotoilcr n;,7,rcec to roS,ollon Srticlc of oome1'co in tJ:iaState only St e xioo fissd by the I:onufScturer or dirtributor of Such nrticlc of cc:xsroo. In the ci:seof Coddoll VS. ::Stkins (C.C.A. Son Antonio) 227 9. V!.m't, t.l?C court mid: "If by the fores of this contract qnd the controlciven thcreun>als in ths OQCO of Tri-State Soles Co. Vs. Rational Autoxltio ::ochina Co., 38 8. iY. (2d) 059. In each of the follozinS cases, tho contracts with vhlch the courts v,oro dealing prorllnontlylnvolvod acre+ ncnts bctv:oonnaaufocturars or distributors and dcelsrs to whom they wxo sellinS their yoods that such dcolaro should resell such Sooda only et retail prices fixed by the maw- focturer or dietributor. In oath cnso, such "vortioal' price-fixing q (;roaxentwas held to be void because in Vlo- lation of our Ststo anti-trust laws: vi.T. RawloiSh Co. vs. Ds?:cr, et al (C.C.A. Texarkena). 117 s. R. (2d) 1117. Karathon Oil Co. vs. Rodlay, et al (C.C.A. Ft. ?iorth), 107 5. V'. (2d) Oes, writ di~!ri~scd. EcConnon vs. Ralston, et al, 275 8. 1?. 165. XoConnon vs. I!nrshnll, et al (C.C.A. Texnrkana), 280 s. iY.323. a. T. Rav:lcieh Co. vs. BraCberry'(C.C.A. Ar,erillo), 290 S. >I.870. 71. T. Rnwloigh Co. vs. Rudeon, et 01 (C.O.A. Rl IOOO), 200 3. iv. 775. v. T. RnviloiShCo. vs. Gober, ct nl*(C.C.A- ?aco), I3 S. 71. (2d) S45. J. R. v;atkinoI:cdionl Co.~va. Johnson, ot al (C.C.A. Son Antonio), lG:!S. L:.394. In each of the sbovo cltod oo!xs Jurl refwr.:d to, there ycro ‘oth.?rvioli:tlouco!'tho out!-tmst lo\~:s,j.nvol.vod finsuch contracts, SUOh 65 ~O~l211?~2IIt!; t?;:.:t ti7.ac.OOci:i bo sold by the rctcllor only in c czrtnin tcixlt.crry, or t&t the dcalor should bind hi:Gclf to co11 no otbm {;oods of o sllnllarchnractcr, or th;t the dmler dfl.1'ota his ontire tlr:eonly to the hole of the p2::ticulnrccr.i;6il:*'c :mrchnn- dloe; but it is oppcront i'roi;l tho follo;.lr.:: c:lcesreforrcd to balm t!,:lt tho stipulotinn In tl:ocoutx,.ct>i.:hich chiofly conccrnod tho courts wus thnt fixlfizprice::, and ti::ltthe othor Ptlpul5tionc roforra~ to mro rcfcrdr3 Vi tho courts, es they are by the anti--trustloo;:,ao viu:ous ond coatrnry to tho public iMcrc:t becnuce they afford ef'fectivc:~xm by Yzhlch pri63 control nay bc mlntolnod. In tha csse of J. R. !%tkino !~:odicalCo. vs. Johnson et al (C.C.2. Son Antonio), lG2 S. VT.384, t?m Cm-t, in di6tfntl\ishillC the :'U~;'cmCourt c2coo of Idb6i%y;16 CD. vr. Feist GO., nnQ Fuqa 78. Fiwrin~ Co., ro::clks: 'I...they nrc clomly dlntingsi:5hnblo. In the Fuqnn caao the fmrtics sourht to con!.rol th6 Pl'iCC nlld SirlC Of t!lc b.:cr oftcl t!lu title theroto v~stxl f.n the purchd::x?, ns ~011~ 6% to dopriro the buyer end sollor ol t!w r,i~htto (:s:l wit3 any other jx?rsonowith roforcnce to the EWZB cozziodltyin the oc::wtarritory durlw: the tsm of the cont.rnct. In tho F'eist cast?no cfrort me rude to co:;troloi'lixit tho Ciq~orition of tke (;ooas ... but to bind the soiler to 3511 tiresme class of GOOR:: to no other pxrson in the ~'s;:o territory i'orn lirlltcdtlxa. The contrwt clcnrly shirjlcthat Feint P-.Cwp?ruy vw1'0 in no :mmm lirlitcd in ttc?irri::htto cull or to fix the prim or the (:oods or in my mmcr to coriLro1or llr.:lt tho free and Unro6tXIiIlsd tiTffi6 in th0 :~OOds cold oftor thc.titlu thcrzto v3stcd in l‘clst;: Coqmy, The corn con be mid of'the coca of Xclipoc i%iat Cmpnny vs. NW Froccso rtoo?ln;. Co:'1>ouy." In the 6660 of Double Seal Hin;:Co.x:mnyvs. Keith, (C.C.A. Pt. ;:'orth), 107 S. i'l.(2d) 428, writ roi'uoed,the Court rooo,';nirud thnt if the oontroct there undm consid- orotlon bsd boon oue of rslo, rnthnr then one of ogonoy, and hn(lfixed the rcsalc prlco$ at vihlohthe 00n'~10cliti6~ !nust bo rold, it would I!;vobcon in violetion of our Statc anti-trust laws. In the OGL:C of tiu Enmel Point Co. Vs. Davis (G.C.A. Ft. Korth), G3 S. IV. (7.d)RCl, the Court, lu holdin!!that a contract for the sale of paint not ctipulntinz tbot thz? distributor S1oulG be tho co1.0dlntributor in tho torrltory deolC:nateduor binding him to ccl].at o fl:ml prloo, did not rioloto Stato,nnti-trust law, rennrks: VW Century ;.:anufnctiirin: Co. vs. Bohouror (VOXOS CC:X!~:::~O~ 6r hp 61.:;) 45 L;. .::. (?a) 560, is not in pglnt, slnc2 the contmct tllorc conctruud dld stipuloto 8 fixed price for which the articles oontrnctcd for should bo cold.* It nuct bz notod, of oourcc, tlat tho ceeo of Rcw cc!:tury'JInnui"acturlny, Co. VS. Cohourar ho3.dD contract to p?~rchesepoint contoinln: proVl;:io:wrixilg:tho mm10 price Of point to bn in violation of the l?o&rcl enti- trust 1~s; but it is api:nrciIttlmt the Fo;t Yorth Cwrt of CiVll Ap?cnlo conntracd tl:rct 03s::as equally n~plfcnblc to our State anti-trust lnxo. In the moo of :I. T. Rarlei~b Co. VS. Flotohcr, et cl, (C.C.A. Tcxlrkana), 275 S. 1. 210, the Coupt ctatcd thot the fact Wet D.buyer, puro!acl~~ nrtlclcs ootrl:;ht,Vas ln~i'ely~ovorncd by the scllcr*c "l;u:::L'.?3tcG prlcob" in dir;- posing of articlea bou;ht did not 111and of itself ooneti- tuto 6 viol;:tionof State m&l-trust lew. The Court says: There lb no find.lngthat it UUB a part of the contract l-orrlotcksr to ye;011 the r,oodcat- p~lcas listed to hl&. The fmre feet that 'in di~po~lu::of‘the products purclasod by hlx,' TletchJr 'I:23lcrcely ~OV0XIlGd by 'n B'Ji~~\OSted retell grim list of JI1‘OduCtcq v;ouldnot, In i,tcolf,bc .=I vlol:jtlon of'tho ctatutec." That csee, themfore, turns upon the failura to be&b- lioh either the n~roc.;:ant or the cuctox i!zply:ni- en ayrcc- mnt., to rerzcllnt priccc fired by the co;!wny, the court ncceccnrlly lsplyln: that lr Flotchor h?d obll;;qtodhirxolf to rcasll at prlccs fixed by the co~ipony,tbsro v~ouldhnve cxistcd cuch n cozblnntion 86 in redo unlwful by tho nnti- truot lo~.zor TCXI~G,sun such contrnots v:ouldhow been void. And in the mce of K. T. Rawleigh Co. vs. Fish, (C.C.A. Xer;tlcnd),290 2. 2. 798, the Cowt, in conetruin~ b ooztract for the snle of hoods es not limitln~ olther territory, rccclo price, or requiring voadee to sell only vcndorfs coed:;,and thorcforo not viol.ntin:-our ttetc cnti-trust lavrb,a@n hplics that if tke oontrt~ot:v:dflxod the rc- oale pricrr,it v;ould have boon in violetion of our enti- trust lam. And in the onse of Y!.T.~Rwloigh Co. vc. lIarpar (Co+ nission 0r Ap>cnls), 17 u. Y. (Pd) 455, Ia0 Corx&.sion or hppoalo, ~~licr- t,?ls jury found tlm t the ar,raomnt xwde pro- vldod t!mt i!llrgrwe to dcvoto bin entfro tirnc,skill, OtC., to selling cooidspuro!mscd of the company by him, but t!mt lt did not:conttzglots or provldc that hlr:torritorj %s to be limltcd or that the rosalo price w R to be filed by tllo co:~pci:yh&i that the oontrect did not violsto our Stnte entl-trust Inwe, but hem n&n the intimntion ie olonr that if the oontract had provided for tho fixing of the remlo ,7rlce,the coul’t would hove held it to bc Void. Other autho~~ltloofrom thlc Et::t ml::ht be cltcd by us in cunrort or the proposition Fnvolvod, but to do 60 vmdld lo:I+!\cnthis o,in!Lon. Il:r:muzti-Jc ut?I:uly annotatlonn unon the bubjoct ~111 bo fou!ldin 7 ,,.i..i:. 4d');19 f..L.T..9;:s;:%? A.L.E. 1037; 103 A.t.l:.1331; 164 fr.L.R.1452; 106 A.L.P.. 1486; and 110 A.L.lc. 1413. Won. V. Lee O'Dnniel, June 20, lBSrJ,P9ee 11. That the iixmdintc effect of the coxbinotion or o~rec- wxt r&y bo to lo:.crprices h::obwn held by o.zrcourts not to vit:llix or rondar valid such a~;rot:;l.~nt.r?. In Ccn Antonio Gas 00. VG. State, 54 S. \i. %CI),it is oald: *'%tdoee not wttcr tklt tho ir&:lrrdinte recult of coxhitwtion x.yybe a rcductlon in the price os^co:xloditios. b dnnGerouo arbitrary poser hrs boon lodged in its bonds, by %hich the bualno&s of the country may be nbaolutoly domiriqted,and prica arbitrarily controlled, re&¶rdlec~ of'tbc Iwo of tredo or the rules of eupplg and Gcmnd.,... The object of the stututcs la to tunrd the coll'.iorce nnd trade of the ctnta so that it my floz in ito rcCulnr ohannels, oub.ioctto the l..;v of supply and dcmsnd, and untrnxwled by tha oo::!binntionn of man or oorporatlons which onn, nt will, control their OOUrGQ." Uc ltivebeen referred to the w~o'of Old Dearborn Din- tributln!:00. VI?,SeaC:rcwDietillcrs, 81 L. ed. 769, by the Supreme Court of thu United W.:ltcr:.Thnt onso involved only the validity of the Illinois Pair Trnde Act insorar as the Constitution of the United 3tatoc lo concerned. The fllinoi~ Sair Trsdc Act containad no cucb provision a5 is found in Section 7 Or 1:OUt.e Bill 231, hOW2 that authority has no bcwil;g ulronthe quontion on v:hichtho velidity of :!ousanil1 2.31irs turned. Eubxectione 1, 2 and 3 of Section 1 Or I:ousOGill 231, quoted above, expressly oanction end. propose to mke valid and biudln& oontmctn 02 D chnrwcicr itmouncud an0 readercd null, void, end unenl'orcibleby the proviuions of our State antf-truat laws, as oont~ln~d in Chaytor 3, Tit10 10 Penal Code ol'the State of Toxr, RJld Title 125, Revised Civil Stetute3 0r TOxnr, 1925. Thorurora, by virtue of the exg%ss provisions contninad in Nouse Bill fro.231, Section 1 of %une Dill FTo.231 is sutircilynull, void, and of no force and effect. Since the grovlcions contained in Poction 1 or 1Iowc Rlll.Xo. 231 constitntc the bono ond sinez of the entire Act, nnd withoat such provisions tho rameindor of the Act bocono; mcanlw~:loco, it is np:lxrcntthrt the entire ,k0t nust rdi. &&&g&A+ Dy . R. ';1. Fairchild Assi otent