78 BULLETIN 110 6, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 
that it had no application to a marketing contract entered into prior 
to the passage of the cooperative statute containing the provision. 
MONOPOLY— RESTRAINT OF TRADE 
To understand clearly the attitude of the courts toward early coop- 
erative efforts in this country, it is important to have in mind the 
legal background with respect to monopolies and restraint of trade. 
For centuries the common law looked askance at anything that ap- 
peared to restrain trade or to reduce competition. One could hardly 
overemphasize the attitude of the early English courts with respect 
to these matters. Bona fide partnerships were apparently always 
held to be lawful, although the formation of a partnership might 
mean a reduction of one or more in the number of traders or dealers. 
The common-law attitude toward restraint of trade is illustrated 
by a Washington case 41 involving an association of milk dealers of 
the City of Seattle, which fixed the price of milk and through which 
the dealers agreed not to sell to each others' customers. The milk 
dealers were prosecuted and found guilty of conspiracy under com- 
mon-law principles. 
It was held at early common law that if a man sold his business 
and entered into an agreement with the purchaser that he would not 
engage in the same business either at that place or any other place, 
or within a given area for a given period of time, or at any time, the 
agreement was illegal on the theory that it reduced the opportunities 
of the seller for making a living. 42 
Gradually the attitude of the courts toward contracts of this land 
relaxed, and to-day they are upheld generally, if the restrictions 
on the right of the seller to engage in business are no greater than 
is reasonably necessary for the protection of the buyer. 43 
Further light is thrown on the state of the law towards acts 
deemed to be in restraint of trade by the statute passed by the 
English Parliament in the reign of Edward VI prohibiting fore- 
stalling, engrossing, and regrating. 44 
Forestalling consists of buying victuals on their way to market and 
before they reach it, with intent to sell again at a higher price. 45 
Engrossing was the buying at any place of certain necessities of 
life from producers with a view to resale at a higher price. Regrat- 
ing was the purchase of provisions at a fair or public market for 
the purpose of resale at a higher price in the same market or in 
any market within 4 miles thereof. This early English statute 
restricting trading in victuals and provisions evidences the intention 
that such products should pass from the original producer to the 
consumer. In other words, the object of the statute was undoubtedly 
to keep the bridge short between the producer and the consumer. 
This statute against forestalling, engrossing, and regrating, as well 
as the other principles with reference to restraint of trade referred 
to all became a part of the common law of this country to a large 
41 State v. Erickson, 54 Wash. 472, 103 P. 796. 
42 Anson on Contracts, Am. Ed., sec. 255. 
43 Lumbermen's Trust Co. v. Title Ins. & Inv. Co. of Tacoma, 248 F. 212. 
44 Stats, at Large. 7 Edw. VI. v. 5. ch. 14. 
45 Button v. City of KnoxYille, 121 Tenn. 25, 113 S. W. 381, 383. 130 Am. St, Rep. 748, 
16 Ann. Cas. 1028. 
