LEGAL PHASES OF COOPEKATIVE ASSOCIATIOlsrS. 35 



articles of incorporation or by-laws, as they appear in evidence, to apportion 

 gains and losses among the several stockholders. 



This case emphasizes the fact that a cooperative association which 

 is acting as agent for its members does not have authority, unless 

 conferred in some way, to adjust losses between members. As in- 

 dicated, if the contract with its members had authorized it to 

 apportion losses, then plaintiff undoubtedly could have been re- 

 quired to bear his proportionate part of the loss. 



COOPERATIVE ASSOCIATIONS LIABLE FOR ACTS OF AGENTS. 



Incorporated cooperative associations, like other corporations, are 

 liable for the acts of their agents while such agents are acting 

 within the scope of their employment. A corporation may be liable 

 for assault and battery, conversion, nuisance, trespass, libel, and 

 slander,^^ malicious prosecution, wrongful arrest, false imprison- 

 ment, fraud, and deceit,^^ It may also be guilty of crimes.^^ It is 

 apparent that all of the various acts enumerated would have to be 

 done by the officers, agents, or employees of a corporation, as a 

 corporation can act in no other way. There is nothing in the nature 

 of an incorporated cooperative association to relieve it from liability 

 under circumstances where any other type of corporation would be 

 liable, and undoubtedly they may be held liable in a proper case ion 

 any of the matters mentioned above. 



MONOPOLIES— RESTRAINT OF TRADE. 



MONOPOLIES. 



The term " monopoly " originally referred to a grant by the 

 sovereign of the exclusive right to deal in a certain commodity or' 

 to engage in a certain occupation. Queen Elizabeth of England 

 granted monopolies to many of her subjects whom she desired to 

 reward. There were monopolies in salt, starch, calfskins., and many 

 other things. The question of the legality of such monopolies arose 

 in 1602, in a case in which the plaintiff had received the exclusive 

 privilege for 21 years to manufacture playing cards. The defendant 

 impinged this right, and plaintiff brought suit for damages. The 

 defendant pleaded the illegality of the monopoly, and the court held 

 the grant of the monopoly void.^" Parliament, in 1624, enacted a 

 statute abrogating monopolies save in certain instances. 



The term " restraint of trade " originally referred to instances 

 where a man had sold his business and agreed with the purchaser that 



"Buckeye Cotton Oil Co. v. Sloan, 250 Fed. 712. 



18 Fletcher Cyclopedia Corporations, sec. 3336. 



19 Fletcher Cyclopedia Corporations, sec. 5369. 

 «> Darcy v. Allen, 11 Co. 84. 



