24 BULLETIN 1106, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE. 
The appellant makes three principal contentions: First, that the contract 
is void at common law as against public policy; second, that it is contrary 
to Article 12, Section 22 of the constitution of this State, which is the section 
covering the matter of monopolies and trusts, and, third, that the contract is 
void as being in contravention of the Sherman Antitrust Act, passed by 
the Federal Congress on April 2, 1890. 
The contract was upheld as against the various contentions re- 
ferred to, and an injunction issued restraining the defendant from 
disposing of his cranberries outside of the association. The contract 
involved was one of 60 similar contracts. 
An Alabama case,’® a California one,’? and two New York deci- 
sions *° also support the validity of such contracts. In Iowa‘ and 
Colorado *? the decisions indicate that liquidated damage clause 
provisions in such contracts are invalid in those States on the 
ground that they operate to restrain trade unlawfully. For a dis- 
cussion of this proposition the reader is referred to the sections 
dealing with liquidated damages and antitrust matters. 
POLLING: RIGHT TO DETERMINE GRADE. 
A provision in a crop contract authorizing a cooperative associa- 
tion to pool the products of the various members with whom it. has 
contracts is undoubtedly valid. It is a proper subject for con- 
tract. Of course, the question of whether the pooling was done 
fairly and in accordance with the contract is a different matter. 
The association would be liable to a member in case it failed to 
act in good faith and in accordance with the terms of the contract. 
A stipulation in a contract giving a cooperative association or 
one or more of its officers or agents the right to determine conclu- 
sively the grade and quality of produce delivered under it appears 
to be valid. This doctrine is subject to the qualification that the 
officers or agents must act honestly and in good faith. In a case 
decided by the Supreme Court of the United States,** 
7§ Ex Parte Baldwin County Producers Corporation, 203 Ala. 345, 83 So. 69. 
7 Anaheim Citrus Fruit Ass’n. v. Yeoman, (Calif.) 197 Pac. 959. 
80 Bullville Milk Producers Ass’n v. Armstrong, 178 N. Y. S. 612; Castorland Milk 
and Cheese Ass’n. v. Shantz, 179 N. Y. S. 1381. 
St Reeves v. Decorah Farmers Cooperative Society, 160 Iowa 194, 140 N. W. 844, 
44 L. R. A. (N. 8S.) 1108; Ludewese v. Farmers M. C. Co., 164 Iowa 197, 145 N. W. 475. 
‘2 Burns v. Wray Farmers’ Grain Co., 65 Colo. 425, 176 Pac. 487. 
83 Martinsburg & Potomac R. R. Co. v. March, 114 U. S. 549. J 
A contract for the construction of a railroad provided that the company’s engineer 
should in all ecses determine questions relating to its execution, kinds of work to be done, 
and the compensation earned by the contractor at the rates specified; that his estimate 
should be final and conclusive; and that whenever the contract shall be completely 
performed on the part of the contractor, and the said engineer shall certify the same 
in writing under his hand, together with his estimate aforesaid, the said company shall, 
within thirty days after the receipt of said certificate, pay to the said contractor, in 
current notes, the sum which according to this contract shall be due. 
