26 BULLETIN 1106, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE. 
that no recovery could be had, the Supreme Court of the United 
States said: 89 
Courts will endeavor, by a construction of the agreement which the parties 
have made to ascertain what their intention was when they inserted such a 
stipulation for payment, of a designated sum or upon a designated basis, for a 
breach of a covenant of their contract, precisely as they seek for the intention 
of the parties in other respects. When that intention is clearly ascertainable 
from the writing, effect will be given to the provision, as freely as to any other, 
where the damages are uncertain in nature or amount or are difficult of ascer- 
tainment, or where the amount stipulated for is not so extravagant, or dispro- 
portionate to the amount of property loss, as to show that compensation ivas 
not the object aimed at or as to imply fraud, mistake, circumvention, or oppres- 
sion. There is no sound reason why persons competent and free to contract 
may not agree upon this subject as fully as upon any other, or why their agree- 
ment, when fairly and understandingly entered into with a view to just com- 
pensation for the anticipated loss, should not be enforced. 
The number of cases relative to liquidated damage provisions in- 
volving cooperative associations is not large. In a California case 90 
the by-laws of the association, which were signed by the members, 
provided that members should pay 50 cents per box as liquidated 
damages for every box of fruit which was not marketed through the 
association. The defendant marketed 568 boxes outside the asso- 
ciation, and it brought suit for $284 and recovered. The court, 
among other things, said that " the existence and life of the asso- 
ciation itself depended upon its being furnished fruit to dispose of 
in the public market," and that the " standing of the association as 
a marketing concern " would be affected by a reduction in the amount 
of fruit marketed. 
In two Xew York cases 91 involving milk associations, provisions 
in by-laws and contracts for liquidated damages of $2 per cow 
during the period that milk was not delivered in accordance with 
the contracts involved were upheld. In an Alabama case 92 the by- 
laws provided that members should pay the association 3 per cent on 
the gross selling price of all produce disposed of by them, whether 
sold through the association or outside, and although the judgment 
of the lower court was reversed by the Supreme Court of that State 
on another point, it expressed the view that the by-law was valid 
and binding. Mention was made of the necessity for providing in- 
come for the association, and of the expense the association incurred 
in preparing to handle and in being in readiness to handle the 
produce of its members. A case 93 decided by the Supreme Court of 
Washington in 1921, involving the right of an association to obtain 
59 Wise v. United States, 249 U. S. 361. 
90 Anaheim Citrus Fruit Ass'n v. Yeomen, (Calif.) 197 Pac. 959. 
01 Bullville Milk Producers' Ass'n. v. Armstrong, 17S N. Y. S. 612 ; Castorland Milk 
& Cheese Co. v. Shantz, 179 N. Y. S. 131. 
02 Ex Parte Baldwin County Producers' Corporation, 203 Ala. 345, S3 So. 6!). 
93 Washington Cranberry Growers' Ass'n. r. Moore, (Wash.) 201 Pac. 773, 204 Pac. 811, 
