LEGAL PHASES OF COOPERATIVE ASSOCIATIONS. 35 
MONOPOLIES— RESTRAINT OF TRADE. 
MONOPOLIES. 
The term " monopoly " originally referred to a grant by the sov- 
ereign of the exclusive right to deal in a certain commodity or to en- 
gage in a certain occupation. Queen Elizabeth of England granted 
monopolies to many of her subjects whom she desired to reward. 
There were monopolies in salt, starch, calfskins, and many other 
things. The question of the legality of such monopolies arose in 1602, 
in a case in which the plaintiff had received the exclusive privilege 
for 21 years to manufacture playing cards. The defendant impinged 
this right, and plaintiff brought suit for damages. The defendant 
pleaded the illegality of the monopoly, and the court held the grant 
of the monopoly void. 20 Parliament, in 1624, enacted a statute abro- 
gating monopolies save in certain instances. 
The term " restraint of trade " originally referred to instances 
where a man had sold his business and agreed 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. All such agreements appear to have been illegal in 
the early days of the common law on the theory that they reduced 
the opportunities of the seller to make a living and tended to 
monopoly. 21 Later such agreements were upheld if deemed rea- 
sonable. At this time they are generally upheld if the restrictions 
on the right of the seller to engage in business are no greater than 
those reasonably necessary for the protection of the buyer. 22 
Gradually the terms " monopoly " and " restraint of trade " took 
on a broader meaning. The term " monopoly " has come to mean the 
concentration of business in the hands of a few 23 or a combination 
of persons or corporations for the purpose of raising or controlling 
the prices of merchandise or any of the necessaries. of life. 24 The 
expression " restraint of trade " is now used as the equivalent of re- 
straint of competition and both terms are employed to describe a 
situation where illegal means are used to eliminate or restrict com- 
petition, or to control prices, or to form a monopoly. 
This proposition is illustrated by a Kentucky case 25 in which the 
plaintiffs were the principal buyers of blue-grass seed in that State. 
They entered into a secret partnership under which each of the 
buyers was to continue to operate apparently independently. How- 
ever, the scheme contemplated that they would secure control of the 
2°Darcy v. Allen, 11 Co. 84. 
21 Anson on Contracts, sec. 255. 
22 Lumbermen's Trust Co. v. Title Insurance & Inv. Co., 248 Fed. 212. 
23 National Fireproofing Co. v. Mason Builders Assn., 169 Fed. 259, 26 L. R. A. (N. S.) 
148. 
24 Chicago, W. & V. Coal Co. v.. People, 114 111. App. 75. 
« Brent v. Gay, 149 Ky., 615, 149 S. W. 915, 41 L. E. A .(N. S.) 1034. 
