LEGAL PHASES OF COOPERATIVE ASSOCIATIONS 77 
held void under a statute of that State declaring fraudulent all con- 
veyances of real or personal property made to delay creditors and 
others, where the person to whom the transfer is made has notice 
of the fraudulent intent of the person making the transfer. 36 In 
this case the association recovered liquidated damages of 5 cents per 
pound for all tobacco grown on the farm in question and disposed 
of outside of the association. 
CONCLUSIVE PRESUMPTION 
A number of the cooperative statutes that have been enacted dur- 
ing the last few years contain a provision 37 stating that " it shall 
be conclusively presumed that a landowner or landlord or lessor is 
able to control the delivery of products produced on his land by ten- 
ants or others " whose tenancy is created after the execution of a 
marketing contract. This provision in the cooperative acts of Ken- 
tucky and Colorado has been upheld by the courts of those States. 38 
In the Kentucky cases just cited the association recovered liquidated 
damages from the landlord on account of products grown on his 
land which were not marketed through the association. 
In the two Colorado cases just cited the court held that the asso- 
ciation was entitled to enjoin the landlord and the tenant in each 
case, and to recover damages from each of them. In each of the 
Colorado cases, the tenant knew that the landlord was a member of 
the association, and the court held that he was charged with notice 
of the conclusive presumption provision in the cooperative act of 
Colorado. 
The conclusive-presumption provision in the cooperative act of 
Louisiana was held to be in conflict with the fourteenth amendment 
to the Federal Constitution by the supreme court of that State. 39 
In the case first cited above, the association sought to compel the 
specific performance of a contract and to recover liquidated damages 
for cotton sold outside the association. The cotton had been grown 
on the share-lease plan and the tenants were not parties to the suit. 
From the record it did not appear that the " tenants had any know- 
ledge of the marketing agreement of their landlord with said asso- 
ciation." The court declared that the legislature had " made an 
indirect but clear attempt to deprive tenants of their property in 
cotton raised under the share system of contract, without notice of 
such marketing contract, and without due process of law of any 
kind." Although all persons are charged with knowledge of the 
law, persons are not charged with knowledge of the membership of 
cooperative associations or with knowledge of the persons that have 
entered into marketing contracts with an association. 
In a Mississippi case, 40 the court expressed doubt concerning the 
constitutionality of the conclusive presumption provision and held 
38 Coyle v. Dark Tobacco Growers' Co-op. Ass'n, 213 Ky. 272, 277 S. W. 318. 
87 See sec. 18 of the Bingham Cooperative Marketing Act of Kentucky on p. 123 in 
aP ^ e Feagain v. Dark Tobacco Growers' Co-op. Ass'n. 202 Ky. 801 261 SW 607 ; Dark 
Tobacco Growers' Co-op. Ass'n v. Daniels, 215 Ky. 67, 284 S. W. 399 ; Monte Vista Potato 
Growers' Co-op. Ass'n v. Bond, 80 Colo. 516, 252 P. 813; Wilson v. Monte \ista Potato 
Growers' Co-op. Ass'n, 82 Colo. 428, 260 P. 1080. ■.,.'> . 
^Louisiana Farm Bureau Cotton Growers' Co-op. Ass n v. Clark, 160 La. 294, 10 1 So. 
115 ; Louisiana Farm Bureau Cotton Growers* Co-op. Ass'n v Bannister, 161 La 9o8, 109 
So. 776 ; Louisiana Farm Bureau Cotton Growers' Co-op. Ass n v. Bacon, 164 La. 126, 
113 So. 790. „„„ _ «,. 
*° Staple Cotton Co-op. Ass'n v. Hemphill, Miss. , 107 So. ^4. 
