LEGAL PHASES OF COOPERATIVE ASSOCIATIONS 79 
degree, 46 and this should be kept in mind when considering the atti- 
tude of American courts towards early cooperative efforts in this 
country. 
Perhaps because of a change in economic and social conditions and 
perhaps because of the demonstrated inefficiency of such a statute, 
} it was repealed partly in 1772 and completely in 1844. 47 
It is interesting that the statute enacted in 1844 by the English 
Parliament, which included the repeal of the statute against fore- 
stalling, engrossing, and regrating, stated that it was being repealed 
because the prohibited acts had come to be considered as favorable 
to the development of trade and not as restraining trade. 
From the foregoing it is clear that we inherited common-law prin- 
ciples and traditions against restraint of trade. 
Some of the cases involving cooperative associations that were 
decided in States prior to the enactment of cooperative statutes in the 
States concerned will now be discussed. 
An Iowa case, decided in 1913, involving a cooperative associa- 
tion, was disposed of in accordance with what the court conceived 
to be the common-law principles applicable. A by-law of the asso- 
ciation provided that any member of the association should forfeit 
5 cents for every hundredweight of produce or livestock sold to any 
competitor of the association. A buyer of hogs, who operated in 
the territory in which the association functioned, brought an injunc- 
tion suit to prevent the association from enforcing the by-law. In 
holding against the association, the Supreme Court of Iowa held 
that the by-law was in restraint of trade because the plaintiff was 
placed at a disadvantage and could not compete with the society in 
purchasing hogs from its members, and the members were not free 
to deal with plaintiff. If they dealt with him, he either forfeited 
his profits by reason of having to pay too much for his hogs, or 
they forfeited a part of the purchase price as a penalty for selling 
to him. 48 
In a Colorado case 49 a by-law provided that stockholders might 
sell grain to competitors of the association in a particular town by 
paying one cent per bushel to the association for all grain so sold. 
A stockholder who had agreed to the by-law sold 3,500 bushels of 
grain to a competitor of the association and it brought suit against 
him to recover $35. The by-law was held invalid on the ground 
that it was in restraint of competition and the association lost the 
suit. 
It is interesting that the Colorado cases followed the Iowa cases. 
Other cases in which the courts held against the cooperative associa- 
tions involved, on the ground that they were operating in restraint 
of trade, are here given. 50 
48 Stale v. Eastern Coal Co., 29 R. I. 254, 70 A. 1, 132 Am. St. Rep. 817, 17 Ann. Cas. 96. 
47 Standard Oil Co. of New Jersey v. United States, 221 U. S. 1, 55. 
48 Reeves v. Decorah Farmers' Co-operative Society, 160 Iowa 194, 140 N. W. 844. 44 
L. R. A. (N. S.) 1104; followed in Ludowese v. Farmers' Mut. Co-op. Co., 164 Iowa 197, 
145 N. W. 475. 
49 Burns v. Wray Farmers' Grain Co., 65 Colo. 425, 176 P. 487 ; followed in Atkinson 
et al. v. Colorado Wheat Growers' Ass'n, 77 Colo. 559, 238 P. 1117. 
50 Georgia Fruit Exchange v. Turnipseed (1913), 9 Ala. App. 123, 62 So. 542; Ford v. 
Chicago Milk Shippers' Ass'n (1895), 46 111. App. 576, 27 L. R. A. 298, 39 N. E. 651. 
