76 BULLETIN" 110 6, U. S. DEPARTMENT OE AGRICULTURE 
In a Colorado case 29 a competitor of a cooperative inserted adver- 
tisements in a local paper relative to the decline in the price of 
cabbage. As the statements in these advertisements were held ap- 
parently to be simply an honest expression of opinion, it was held 
that they did not violate an injunction order which, among other 
things, forbade interference with " any of the business of the ex- 
change." In other words, the court held that the injunction order 
quoted was too broad or that it should be confined to instances of 
illegal interference. In an Oregon case, 30 in which the members of 
a cooperative association had disabled the association from fulfilling 
a contract which it had made with a buyer of loganberries by failing 
or refusing to deliver their loganberries to the association for market- 
ing, the court held that the buyer had a cause of action against the 
association and against the members, because they had prevented the 
association from performing its contract. 
Virginia 31 and Kentucky 32 have enacted statutes, sometimes re- 
ferred to as " True Name Laws," that require warehousemen to keep 
records showing the true names of the owners of tobacco they had for 
sale, and permitting the inspection of such records. It was claimed 
by opponents of this legislation that the object of the statutes was to 
enable cooperative associations to ascertain if their members were 
disposing of tobacco to others. These statutes have been upheld. 33 
TRANSFERS IN ATTEMPTS TO AVOID CONTRACTS 
Attempts have been made by members of cooperative associations 
to " transfer " their farms and thus avoid their marketing contracts 
through conducting their farming operations in the names of their 
wives or other persons. The courts have repeatedly declared that 
marketing contracts may not be avoided in this way. The real test 
in cases of this character depends upon whether the transfer involved 
was one in fact, or one in form only. 
In other words, was the transfer simply a colorable transaction or a 
transfer in good faith? If subsequent to the alleged transfer, the 
farming operations were conducted in substance the same as they 
were before the transfer, then the courts hold the transfer inef- 
fective, 34 and the crops grown are subject to the marketing contract. 
On the other hand, if the farming operations subsequent to the trans- 
fer are in fact conducted by the wife of a member, as was done in a 
Virginia case, in which the wife leased a farm from a third person 
and supervised its operations, then the crops grown are not subject 
to a marketing contract signed by the husband. 35 
In Kentucky, a transfer of land by a member of an association to 
his wife and son, although made for a valuable consideration, was 
29 Fort v. People ex rel. Co-op. Farmers' Exchange, 81 Colo. 420, 256 P. 325. 
30 Phez Co. v. Salem Fruit Union. 103 Or. 514, 201 P. 222, 205 P. 970. 
81 1923 Laws of Virginia, ch. 109. 
32 1924 Acts of Kentucky, ch. 10. 
38 Reaves Warehouse Corporation v. Commonwealth, 141 Va. 194. 126 S. E. 87: Motley 
et al. t»r Commonwealth, 141 Va. 194, 126 S. E. 87 ; Danville Warehouse Co.. Inc., v. 
Tobacco Growers' Co-op. Ass'n, 143 Va. 741, 129 S. E. 739 ; Jewell Tobacco Warehouse 
Co. v. Kemper. 206 Ky. 667, 268 S. W. 324. 
34 Burlev Tobacco Growers' Co-op. Ass'n v. Pevine, 217 Ky. 320. 2S9 S. W. 253 ; Dark 
Tobacco Growers' Co-op. Ass'n v. Alexander. 208 Ky. 572, 271 S. W. 677 ; South Carolina 
Cotton Growers' Co-op. Ass'n v. English. 135 S. C 19. 133 S. E. 542 ; Oregon Growers' 
Co-op. Ass'n v. Lentz, 107 Or. 561, 212 P. 811 ; Kansas Wheat Growers' Ass'n v. Lucas, 
124 Kan. 773, 262 P. 551. 
J ' 5 Lavne v. Tobacco Growers' Co-op. Ass'n, Ya. . 133 S. E. 358 ; see also 
Inland Empire Dairv Producers' Ass'n v. Melander et ux., 134 Wash. 145. 235 P. 12 ; 
Inland Empire Dairy Producers' Ass'n v. Casberg et ux.. 134 Wash. 702, 235 P. 13 ; Burley 
Tobacco Growers' Co-op. Ass'n v. Jewell, 213 Ky. 272, 280 S. W. 1105. 
