Syllabus. complaint, and the ordinary form of order on demurrer will be signed when presented. An exception is granted as to the whole disposition of the case, and exceptions separately as to each one of the separate motions will be recorded. Stay of 30 days to plaintiff. [236] NATIONAL HARROW CO. v. QUICK ET AL. (Circuit Court of Appeals, seventh circuit. May 4, 1896.) 174 Fed., 236.] [Decree of the Circuit Court (67 Fed., 130) dismissing the bill for want of equity affirmed, but not upon any ground having a bearing upon the antitrust law. Patent in question held to be void.] [802] THE CHARLES E. WISEWALL. (District Court, N. D. New York. June 12, 1896.) [74 Fed., 802.] MONOPOLIES-ACT JULY 2, 1890-TOWAGE SERVICES.-One who requests and accepts the services of a tug for towage purposes cannot escape paying the reasonable value of the services rendered, on the ground that the tug owners are members of an association which is illegal under the act of July 2, 1890, relating to trusts and monopolies. This was a libel in rem by certain tug owners against the steam dredge Charles E. Wisewall to recover the value of certain services rendered by their tugs in towing the dredge. On final hearing. Joseph A. Lawson and Isaac N. Lawson, for libelants. • Decree affirmed by Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, March 2, 1898 (86 Fed., 671). See p. 850, where the case is entitled 44 The Charles E. Wiswall." Syllabus copyrighted, 1896, by West Publishing Co. Opinion of the Court. COXE, District Judge (orally). The proof shows conclusively that during the summer of 1895, the tugs mentioned in the libel, rendered services to the claimant's dredge in sums aggregating several hundred dollars. The claimant seeks to avoid payment for the services thus requested and accepted by him, upon the ground that the tug owners were members of an association which was illegal and void under the act of July 2, 1890. The courts have found it very difficult to apply the indefinite generalities of this act to the facts of any given case. Prescott & A. C. R. Co. v. Atchison, T. & S. F. R. Co., 73 Fed. 438, and cases cited. Assuming, however, in order to avoid argument, that the agreement by which the tugs undertook to act in unison was prohibited by the act, as being in restraint of trade, my present impression is that this assumption will not aid the claimant. He should not be permitted to repudiate his just debts to the individual tugs because their association was illegal. Having asked for their services, and having accepted the benefit thereof, he should pay. Counsel for the claimant asked for additional time in which to present authorities to establish the proposition that the towage contracts were void and in restraint of trade because the agreement by which the tugs were associated was void for that reason. The au- [803] thorities furnished fail, in my judgment, to meet the point in question. It is a mistake to confound the two contracts. An agreement by the tug Mayflower to tow the dredge Wisewall, for a reasonable sum, from Albany to Troy, is not void because the Mayflower is associated with other tugs to regulate the price of towing at Albany. Should the claimant purchase a pair of trousers at an Albany clothing shop he would find it difficult to avoid paying their actual market value because the vendor and other tailors of that city had combined to keep up prices. So when he employs the Albany tugs during an entire season and receives services worth, upon the present proof, over $900, he should not be permitted to disavow his just obligations upon a pretext so illogical. The tugs do not ask that the dredge shall pay any more than their services are actually Opinion of the Court. worth. If they are worth less than $924 demanded in the libel, it is still open for the claimant to show it. But it is unnecessary to pursue the subject further. Above and beyond every other consideration stands the indisputable fact that the tugs rendered valuable services to the dredge at her request. These debts she should pay. To permit her to escape would be aiding a scheme of repudiation. The tugs are entitled to a decree. Unless there is a reasonable prospect that the claimant can produce testimony reducing the amount proved to be due, a reference would seem unnecessary. However, if the claimant desires it a reference will be ordered. The libelants may amend the libel in the respects heretofore suggested if on reflection they desire to do so. [667] NATIONAL HARROW CO. v. HENCH ET AL. (Circuit Court, E. D. Pennsylvania. August 25, 1896.) MONOPOLIES-COMBINATION [76 Fed., 667.] OF PATENT OWNERS.-A combination among manufacturers of spring-tooth harrows, by which each manufacturer assigns to a corporation organized for the purpose the patents under which he is operating, and takes back an exclusive license to make and sell the same style of harrows previously made by him, and no other, all the parties being bound to sell at uniform prices, held to be an unlawful combination for the enhancement of prices, and in restraint of trade. Risley, Robinson & Love, for complainant. Strawbridge & Taylor and John G. Johnson, for defend ants. ACHESON, Circuit Judge. The plaintiff, the National Harrow Company, seeks an injunction restraining the defendants, Hench & Dromgold, from selling float spring-tooth harrows, harrow frames, and attachments applicable thereto, upon more favorable terms @Affirmed by Circuit Court of Appeals, Third Circuit (83 Fed., 36). See p. 742. A similarly entitled case (84 Fed., 226), p. 746, is another suit, brought in the Circuit Court, N. D. of New York. Syllabus copyrighted, 1896, by West Publishing Co. Opinion of the Court. as to price to purchasers thereof than the prices stipulated in two license contracts annexed to the bill, and a decree for the specific enforcement of said contracts, and for an accounting at the rate of five dollars for each harrow, etc., sold in violation of the terms of said license contracts. Several defenses are insisted on, but in the view I take of the case it will be necessary to discuss only one of them, namely, that these license contracts are in unreasonable restraint of trade, and are part of an unlawful combination to control the manufacture of an important article of commerce, to destroy competition in the [668] sale thereof, and maintain high prices. The National Harrow Company, a corporation of the state of New York,-to whose contract rights and general purposes the plaintiff, a subsequently created New Jersey corporation, has succeeded, originated in a written agreement between a number of leading and distinct manufacturers, under various United States letters patent of float spring-tooth harrows, whereby it was agreed that they should organize a corporation under the laws of New York, and would assign to the corporation all United States letters patent which they respectively then owned or should thereafter acquire relating to float spring-tooth harrows, and the good will of their business in such harrows, and that they would not thereafter be interested in the manufacture or sale of such harrows, except as agents or licensees of the corporation; that the corporation should issue to the persons, firms, and corporations, respectively, so assigning to it their said patents and the good will of their business, exclusive licenses to manufacture and sell upon their own account, subject to uniform terms and conditions, the same style of harrows which they were making and selling just prior to the agreement, and that the corporation itself would not manufacture and sell any style of harrows covered by its licenses; that each licensee should pay to the corporation one dollar on every float spring-tooth harrow manufactured and sold by such licensee, and that each person, firm, or corporation transferring to the corporation the good will of their float spring-tooth harrow business, and their patents relating thereto, should receive in payment therefor the value thereof as agreed upon or as fixed by arbitration in paid-up stock of Opinion of the Court. the corporation. The agreement in the first instance was signed by six different manufacturers, but the contract contemplated and provided that others should come into the arrangement and become parties thereto. Accordingly, other manufacturers of float spring-tooth harrows soon joined the combination, which then embraced 22 different persons, firms, or corporations. Thus, almost the entire output of float spring-tooth harrows made in the United States was brought under the regulation and control of this organization, its licensees manufacturing and selling at least 90 per cent. thereof. The defendants were the owners of two United States letters patent relating to float spring-tooth harrows, under which they had been manufacturing and selling harrows. They joined the combination, and, agreeably to the provisions of the above-recited agreement, they assigned to the New York corporation their patents, and that corporation then issued to the defendants a license to manufacture and sell their old style of harrows. The New Jersey corporation, which was formed in furtherance of the general scheme, issued to the defendants a second license on terms and conditions substantially like the former license. These are the two license contracts here sued on. The following stated provisions are common to both licenses: The defendants agree not to sell float spring-tooth harrows, float spring-tooth harrow frames without teeth, or attachments applicable thereto, at less prices or on more favorable terms of payment and delivery to the purchasers [669] than as is set forth in the schedule annexed to the license, unless the licensor should reduce the selling prices and make more favorable terms for purchasers, and that the defendants will not directly or indirectly manufacture or sell any other float spring-tooth harrows, etc., than those which they are thus licensed to sell and market, except for another licensee, and then only of such style as he is licensed to manufacture and sell. They agree to pay to the corporation one dollar upon each float springtooth harrow, etc., manufactured and sold by them agreeably to the terms of the license, and the sum of five dollars as liquidated damages for every harrow, etc., manufactured or sold by them contrary to the terms and provisions of the license, |