Must Not Restrict Trade

On February i, the supremecourt of Indiana handed down a decisión in tíie matter of trusts and combines which is of great importance. The case involved the right of the Indiana lumber dealers' association to restrict tradi. The association is composed of ,150 retail dealers of the state, and has for honorary members the wholesale dealers ofj the state. Under the articles of agreement the wholesalers agree not to sell to firms outside the combine, and in return the retailers agree to buy only of wholesalers who are members, while $100 forfeit is fixed for any violation of the agreement. One Newton Jackson, of South Bend, not being a member of the association, took a contract to furnish the Studebaker Bros. 2,000,000 feet of lumber, and tried to purchase the same of the West Michigan lumber company of Manistee. The company declined to sell to him, saying that they would be obliged, if they did, to pay Howard Stanfield, of Jackson, a competitor, $100. Thereupon, Jackson brought suit for $500 damage, claiming he would have made that amount on the deal. His suit was dismissed by the lower court, but the supreme court holds that a combine has no right to interfere with a man's business by putting restrictions upon it, and that when it does the member inter fering is liable to the amount represented by the loss of time and money caused by the interferene. This would seem to be good law, at least it is good common sense.