Page. Frank, Delaware, L. & W. R. Co. v., 110 F., 689 . 81 Griffin & Skelley Co., U. S. Consolidated S. R. Co. v., 126 F., 364.. 288 Milwaukee Rubber Works Co., Rubber Tire Wheel Co. v., 142 F., 531.... 855 National Folding-Box & Paper Co. r. Robertson, 99 F., National Harrow Co., Bement v., 186 U. S., 70.......... Page. Otis Elevator Co. v. Geiger, 107 F., 131.... 66 Park, John D., & Sons Co., Hartman v., 145 F., 358. 999 284 826 Rice v. Standard Oil Co., 134 F., 464 . 633 Robertson, National Folding-Box & Paper Co. v., 99 F., 985 . 4 Robinson v. Suburban Brick Co., 127 F., 804.. 312 Rubber Tire Wheel Co. v. Milwaukee Rubber Works Co., 142 F., 531 855 State of Minnesota v. Northern Securities Co., 123 F., 692.. 246 733 53 196 U. S., 375.............. Tift v. Southern Railway Co., 138 F., 753...... Tile, Mantel & Grate Ass'n, Lowry v., 106 F., 38.. Tobacco Trust cases. See Hale v. Henkel, and McAlister v. Henkel. Union Sewer-Pipe Co. v. Connolly, 99 F., 354.. 184 U. S., 540.. U. S. v. Armour & Co., 142 F., 808.... U. S. v. General Paper Co. See Nelson . U. S., and Alexander v. 1 118 951 831 34 151 U. S. Consolidated S. R. Co. v. Griffin & Skelley Co., 126 F., 364 .. 288 Whitwell v. Continental Tobacco Co., 125 F., 454 271 205 FEDERAL ANTI-TRUST DECISIONS. VOL. 2 1900-1906. [354] UNION SEWER-PIPE CO. v. CONNELLY.® (Circuit Court, N. D. Illinois, N. D. January 29, 1900.) [99 Fed., 354.] NOTE TO TRUST AVOIDANCE.-A note made for a balance due on goods bought from a corporation cannot be avoided merely because the latter is a trust organized to create and carry out restrictions in trade contrary to the common law. SAME-A note made for a balance due on goods bought from a corporation cannot be avoided merely because the latter is a trust organized to create and carry out restrictions in trade contrary to the "Sherman Act" (Act Cong. July 2, 1890), as that only covers contracts which are themselves in restraint of trade, and does not affect those which "merely indirectly, remotely, incidentally, or collaterally regulate, to a greater or less degree, interstate commerce between the states." ILLINOIS TRUST LAW-CONSTITUTIONALITY.—Act Ill. July 1, 1893, defining trusts and conspiracies against trade, declaring contracts in violation of its provisions void, etc., provides (section 9) that it shall not apply to agricultural products or live stock while in the hands of producers. Held, that such section rendered the entire act void, as a violation of section 1 of the fourteenth amendment of the federal constitution, and the provision of Const. Ill. art. 4, § 22, that, in cases where a general law can be made applicable, no special law shall be passed. Affirmed by Supreme Court (184 U. S., 540). See p. 118. 1 Opinion of the Court. Herbert W. Hamlin and Edwin Walker, for plaintiff. O'Donnell & Coghlan and John R. McFee, for defendant. KOHLSAAT, District Judge. Plaintiff in this case brings suit to recover on certain promissary notes given by defendant for balance due on purchases and deliveries of sewer pipe. Defendant pleads the general issue, and gives notices thereunder of three special defenses, all of which are based unon the theory that plaintiff was a trust or combination organized for the express purpose of creating and carrying out restrictions in trade, contrary (1) to the common law in force both in Ohio and Illinois; (2) to the act of congress of July 2, 1890, commonly called the "Sherman Act"; and (3) to the statute of the state of Illinois taking effect on July 1, 1893. As to the matters set out in the first notice of special defense, it is undoubtedly true that by the common law contracts which are themselves directly in restraint of trade may, in a proceeding based thereon, be declared void and unenforceable by the courts; but there is no case brought to the attention of the court in which it has been held that at common law a contract not in itself in restraint of trade is void because one of the parties thereto is a party to a contract which is in restraint of trade, and the one contract is indirectly based upon the other. The fact that one party to a contract is engaged in illegal acts will not, at common law, avail the other party as a defense to the enforcement of a contract in itself legal. The first notice of special defense will therefore be stricken out. It will be seen by an inspection of the so-called "Sherman Act," and of the opinion of Mr. Justice Peckham in the Addyston Pipe & Steel Co. Case (decided by the United States supreme court, Dec. [355] 4, 1899) 20 Sup. Ct. 96, [175 U. S., 211], 44 L. Ed. 136, that the act only covers contracts which are themselves directly in restraint of trade, and does not affect those which "merely indirectly, remotely, incidentally, or collaterally regulate, to a greater or less |