Brown v. Staple Cotton Co-op. Ass'n | Cases | Westlaw

In considering this question it should be borne in mind that the case before the court is to be found in the allegations of appellee's bill well pleaded in connection with the bald provisions of the contract involved, and whatever reasonable inferences that may be drawn therefrom. The intent and purpose of the contract is not aided by any pleading on the part of appellant. If our anti–trust statute is to be applied literally, perhaps this marketing contract comes within its provisions. Every member of the appellee association by this contract (which is not only a contract with the association but with each member thereof) has placed the control to some extent of the staple cotton produced or controlled by them in the hands of appellee. Therefore the question is whether our anti–trust statute should be construed according to its literal terms regardless of the results, or whether it is to be construed in the light of reason and with the view of promoting the public welfare.

Section 198, Constitution 1890, commanded the Legislature to “enact laws to prevent all trusts, combinations, contracts, and agreements inimical to the public welfare.” (Italics ours.) In obedience to that command we have chapter 145, Code of 1906, sections 5002 to 5021, inclusive, as amended being chapter 69, Hemingway's Code, §§ 3281 to 3285, inclusive. Putting the question differently, is this contract to be condemned even though it be not inimical to the public welfare? We think this question is answered in the negative by the following decisions of this court: Insurance Co. v. State, 75 Miss. 24, 22 South. 99; Y. & M. V. R. R. Co. v. Searles, 85 Miss. 520, 37 South. 939, 68 L. R. A. 715; Tel. Co. v. State, 100 Miss. 102, 54 South. 670, 39 L. R. A. (N. S.) 277; Standard Oil Co. v. State, 104 Miss. 886, 61 South. 981; Sivley v. Cramer, 105 Miss. 13, 61 South. 653–654; Railroad Co. v. Crawford, 107 Miss. 355, 65 South. 462, L. R. A. 1915C, 250; Standard Oil Co. v. State, 107 Miss. 377, 65 South. 468; Id., 104 Miss. 886, 61 South. 981.

Insurance Company v. State, supra, was an indictment under section 1007, Code of 1892, charging the insurance company with a violation of the anti–trust statute, section 4437, Code of 1892, chapter 56, Laws 1896, defining an insurance monopoly. The court held that the indictment was bad because it failed to charge that the effect of the trust was injurious either to some person or the public.

In discussing this question in the Searles Case, supra, the court said that all combinations *854 or contracts without regard to their purpose, intent, or effect by which the control of business is placed within the power of trustees or other persons than the contracting parties, were not trusts in the meaning of section 4437, Code of 1892, chapter 88, Laws 1900, defining trusts and prohibiting contracts in restraint of trade; that the test of a trust and the essential of its existence is that the contract or combination be, on account of its actual results, obnoxious to the public policy, or be in itself and its necessary effect inimical to the public welfare.

We think it would be well in this connection to reiterate what was said in part in Telephone Co. v. State, supra:

And also what was said, in part, in Railroad v. Searles, supra:

It was held in the first Standard Oil Case, 104 Miss. 886, 61 South. 981, that where a bill was filed in the chancery court to recover the penalties imposed for a violation of the anti–trust act, it was necessary for the pleader to charge as a matter of fact that the sales alleged to have been made in violation of chapter 119, Laws of 1908, amending the anti–trust statutes, were for the purpose of destroying competition, and a failure to so allege rendered the bill demurrable. In Railroad Co. v. Crawford, supra, it was held that our anti–trust statute was only intended to embrace within its provisions those contracts in restraint of trade which were invalid as against public policy before the enactment of said statute. And in the second Standard Oil Case, 107 Miss. 377, 65 South. 468, the court held that it was necessary for the state to allege that the sales there involved as constituting a violation of a provision of the anti–trust statute were made for the purpose of destroying competition. Is appellee's scheme as embodied in its articles of incorporation and its association and marketing contracts inimical to the public interest?

Contracts of co–operative marketing associations with their members similar to the one under consideration, the purposes and corporate powers of which associations were in all substantial respects the same as those of appellee association, have been upheld as not being in restraint of trade in the following cases: Hollingsworth v. Texas Hay Co. (Tex. Civ. App.) 246 S. W. 1068; Anaheim Citrus Fruit Ass'n v. Yeoman, 51 Cal. App. 759, 197 Pac. 959 (hearing by Supreme Court denied); Tobacco Growers' Co–operative Ass'n v. Jones (N. C.) 117 S. E. 174; Poultry Producers v. Barlow (Cal. Sup.) 208 Pac. 93; Ore. Growers' Co–operative Ass'n v. Lentz (Or.) 212 Pac. 811; Ex parte Baldwin County Producers' Corporation, 203 Ala. 345, 83 South. 69; Washington Cranberry Growers' Ass'n v. Moore, 117 Wash. 430, 201 Pac. 773, 204 Pac. 811; Burley Tobacco Soc. v. Gillaspy, 51 Ind. App. 583, 100 N. E. 89; Castorland Milk & Cheese Co. v. Shantz (Sup.) 179 N. Y. Supp. 131; Bullville Milk Ass'n v. Armstrong, 108 Misc. Rep. 582, 178 N. Y. Supp. 612; Burley Tobacco Growers v. Turner (Circuit Court of Kentucky).

Appellant to sustain his contention relies principally upon Kosciusko Oil Mill Co. v. Wilson, 90 Miss. 551, 43 South. 435, 8 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1053; *855 State v. Jackson Cotton Oil Co., 95 Miss. 6, 48 South. 300; Retail Lumber Dealers' Ass'n v. State, 95 Miss. 337, 48 South. 1021, 35 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1054; Security Co. v. State, 91 Miss. 195, 44 South. 785, 124 Am. St. Rep. 638; Reeves v. Farmers' Ass'n, 160 Iowa, 194, 140 N. W. 844, 44 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1104; Ludowese v. Farmers' Ass'n, 164 Iowa, 197, 145 N. W. 475; Ga. Fruit Exchange v. Turnipseed, 9 Ala. App. 123, 62 South. 542; Cummings v. Union Blue Stone Co., 164 N. Y. 401, 58 N. E. 525, 52 L. R. A. 262, 79 Am. St. Rep. 655; Pocahontas v. Powatan Coal Co., 60 W. Va. 508, 56 S. E. 264, 10 L. R. A. (N. S.) 268, 116 Am. St. Rep. 901, 9 Ann. Cas. 667; Whitridge v. Mt. Vernon Co. (D. C.) 210 Fed. 302; People v. Milk Exchange, 145 N. Y. 267, 39 N. E. 1062, 27 L. R. A. 437, 45 Am. St. Rep. 609; Ford v. Chicago Milk Ass'n, 155 Ill. 166, 39 N. E. 651, 27 L. R. A. 298; Gay v. Brent, 166 Ky. 833, 179 S. W. 1051. An analysis of these cases, we believe, will show that they do not sustain appellant's contention.

Kosciusko Co. v. Wilson and State v. Jackson, supra, are companion cases. In each there was an attempt to create a complete monopoly of the business of buying cotton seed in a fixed territory. The court held that such an arrangement was inimical to the public welfare and violative of the anti–trust statute. Retail Lumber Dealers v. State, supra, involved an agreement to suppress competition. All those who competed with members of the association were sought to be put out of business. Security Co. v. State, supra, involved a holding company which was to be utilized to control competing railroad corporations and thereby fix the fares to be charged the public without regard to their reasonableness. Reeves v. Farmers' Ass'n, supra, involved a marketing association entirely different from that of appellee. The principal differences are as follows: The association there was an ordinary corporation organized for pecuniary profit in which voting was allowed by the members on the basis of stock ownership instead of limiting each member to one vote as is done by appellee association. That association bought from and sold to both members and nonmembers; it operated an open market; both growers and nongrowers were stockholders. The by–laws of the association provided that a stockholder should be penalized if he sold his produce to a competitor of the society. The difference between that case and the case at bar was well stated by the Iowa court in its opinion in that case, in this language:

Ga. Fruit Exchange v. Turnipseed, supra, was decided by an intermediate court of appeal of Alabama, therefore Ex parte Baldwyn County Producers' Ass'n, supra, holding to the contrary, which was decided by the Supreme Court of Alabama, is controlling. Cummings v. Union Blue Stone Co., supra, involved a corporation which controlled 90 per cent. of all marketable Hudson blue stone. It was organized for the purpose of fixing prices. The court held that since the association was able to fix arbitrary and unreasonable prices it was illegal. Pocahontas v. Powatan Coal Co., supra, involved a combination of 20 coke manufacturing corporations which had the exclusive power to fix prices and prescribe other essentials of the business. All competition with others engaged in the same business was destroyed. The court held the combination illegal. In Whitridge v. Mt. Vernon Co., the contract considered was held void because a corporation holding a majority of the stock in a second corporation was making contracts for its own benefit between the second corporation and a third corporation in which it owned all the stock. This was held to be a violation of a trust relationship. The question of the restraint of trade was not involved nor discussed. People v. Milk Exchange, supra, involved a combination of milk distributors fix the prices to the consuming public. Prices were actually fixed and the milk market of New York was controlled. The court said that the logical effect of so fixing the prices was to paralyze the production and limit the supply and thus leave dealers in a position to control the market. Ford v. Chicago Milk Ass'n, supra, was organized as a price–fixing association without regard to market conditions and was held illegal. Gay v. Brent, 166 Ky. 833, 179 S. W. 1051, so much relied on by appellant, involved an agreement or understanding by which the parties to the contract sought to absolutely control the price of blue grass seed in Kentucky, which state produced 90 per cent. of the blue grass seed of the world. Clearly such a scheme was illegal.

It will be seen that this court in construing our statute prohibiting monopolies has applied the rule of reason, as has the Supreme Court of the United States in construing the federal statute against monopolies, as have also the courts of other states in passing on co–operative marketing contracts substantially the same as the one here involved. There must be an unreasonable or undue restraint of trade. It must be such a restraint of trade as is detrimental to the public interest. A statute will not be construed so as to lead to unreasonable or absurd results if that can be avoided. The Legislature must be given credit, if the language of the statute in question will permit, of legislating in the public interest. It is inconceivable *856 that it was intended by our anti–trust statute to condemn any and all contracts between two or more persons which might have the effect to hinder the freedom of trade even to the very smallest extent. Such a construction, as it will be seen at once, would lead to absurd results. It would destroy to a large extent the public welfare instead of promote it. The plan of appellee association considered in connection with the marketing and association contracts between appellee and its members does not undertake to fix prices of long staple cotton. The outstanding purpose is to promote intelligent warehousing and marketing of such cotton. Appellee association goes out in the open market and hunts purchasers who compete against each other. It is simply a sales agency or a plan for group marketing. It is true it has large powers, but not even all the power at one end of the bargain. One of the main purposes is to prevent long staple cotton growers from being forced on account of their financial necessities to dump their cotton on the market during the three or four months of harvesting time. A steady market and a reasonable price are central ideas in the plan, a continuous market for the producer the year round, instead of for only three or four months. Another object is to save expense to the producer by means of having large quantities of long staple cotton stored, classed, and marketed by appellee association instead of by thousands of producers, who know nothing about classing cotton. Appellee association under the arrangement is able to sell direct to the mills as well as to others. Mississippi is almost exclusively an agricultural state. Its chief product for market has always been, and probably always will be, cotton. It would be hard to conceive of how a steady market and a reasonable and profitable price for cotton to the producers would be inimical to the public welfare in this state. On the contrary, it would appear that not only every cotton producer in the state would be benefited thereby, but also every other person engaged in any kind of business whatsoever.

Affirmed.