LEGAL PHASES OF COOPERATIVE ASSOCIATIONS. 35 
_ articles of incorporation or by-laws, as they appear in evidence, to apportion 
gains and losses among the several stockholders. 
This case emphasizes the fact that a cooperative association which 
is acting as agent for its members does not have authority, unless 
conferred in some way, to adjust losses between members. As in- 
dicated, if the contract with its members had authorized it to 
apportion losses, then plaintiff undoubtedly could have been re- 
quired to bear his proportionate part of the loss. 
COOPERATIVE ASSOCIATIONS LIABLE FOR ACTS OF AGENTS. 
Incorporated cooperative associations, like other corporations, are 
liable for the acts of their agents while such agents are acting 
within the scope of their employment. A corporation may be liable 
for assault and battery, conversion, nuisance, trespass, libel, and 
slander’ malicious prosecution, wrongful arrest, false imprison- 
ment, fraud, and deceit,* It may also be guilty of crimes.’® It is 
apparent that all of the various acts enumerated would have to be 
done by the officers, agents, or employees of a corporation, as a 
corporation can act in no other way. There is nothing in the nature 
of an incorporated cooperative association to relieve it from liability 
under circumstances where any other type of corporation would be 
liable, and undoubtedly they may be held lable in a proper case for 
any of the matters mentioned above. 
MONOPOLIES—RESTRAINT OF TRADE. 
MONOPOLIES. 
The term “monopoly” originally referred to a grant by the 
sovereign of the exclusive right to deal in a certain commodity or 
to engage 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.?® Parliament, in 1624, enacted a 
statute abrogating 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 
+7 Buckeye Cotton Oil Co. v. Sloan, 250 Fed. 712. 
1 Fletcher Cyclopedia Corporations, sec. 3356. 
1% Fletcher Cyclopedia Corporations, sec. 5369. | 
2 Darcy y. Allen, 11 Co. 84. 
