BOLLES et al. v. PERRY COUNTY. (Circuit Court ot Appeals, Seventh Circuit. February 24, 1899.)
MUNICIPAL BONDS-DEFENSES-BoNA FIDE HOLDERS.
Where county bonds contain no recital that they were Issued In cordance with the requirements of a statute, compliance with which was essential to their validity, the fact that the bonds were registered under the provIsions of such statute, and a certificate to that effect indorsed thereon, does not preclude the county from showing that the statute was· not complied with in their Issuance, even as against innocent holders.
In Error to the Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern District of Illinois. Geo. A. Sanders, for plaintiffs in error. Samuel P. Wheeler, for defendant in error. Before WOODS, JENKINS, and GROSSCUP, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:. This action was brought to recover the amount of bonds issued in the name of Perry county, Ill., to the Belleville & Southern Illinois Railroad Company or bearer, in aischarge of a subscription made in the name of the county to the capital stock of the railroad company. The case is governed in all respects by the decision of the supreme court in Citizens' Savings & Loan Ass'n v. Perry Co., 156 U. S. 692, 15 Sup. Ct. 547, where coupons from the same series of bonds were declared invalid. It is urged, but we cannot see, that that decision is inconsistent with the later opinions of the supreme court in City of Evansville v. Dennett, 161 U. S. 434, 16 Sup. Ct. 613, and Graves v. Saline Co., 161 U. S. 359, 16 Sup. Ct. 526, and of this court in Wesson v. Saline Co., 34 U. S. App. 680, 20 C. C. A. 229, and 73 Fed. 917. In those cases the recitals in the bonds showed compliance with all statutes relating to the subject, while the recital in the bonds in suit contains no reference to the act of April 16, 1869; and that compliance with that act was necessary, and is Dot shown by, or to be inferred from, the registration or certificate of registration of the bonds, was decided in German Say. Bank v. Franklin Co., 128 U. S. 526, 539, 9 Sup. Ct. 159, and reaffirmed in Citizens' Savings & Loan Ass'n v. l'eny Co., supra. The judgment below is affirmed.
CRA YENS v. CARTER-CRUME CO. (Circuit Court of Appeals, Sixth CircuIt. March 7, ISO!).) No. 555.
TRIAL-OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE-SUFFICIENCY.
Error cannot be assigned upon the action of the court In receiving docu· ments In evidence, where no ground tor their exclusion Is stated In the objection made.
COMBINATION TO RESTRICT PRODUCTION-VALIDITY OF CoN
At a convention of manufacturers of wooden ware, In which 80 per cent. of the production or the country was represented, a combination
92 FEDERAL REPORTER.
was tormed tor the purpose ot restricting the production ot wooden dIshes throughout the CO,UIJ,try, and keeping up the price thereot. To this end it was expected and intended that all the factories would be brought under the control of a central organization, which was to regulate the prices. The articles to which the combination related were such as are in common use. Held, that a contract made in pursuance of such combination, by which a manufacturer was guarantied a certain sum as dividends' on his stock in the central company, in consideration of the closing of his factory for a year, was contrary to public policy, and therefore unlaWful, and would not be enforced by the courts.
In Error to the Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern District of Ohio.
Charles Cravens, plaintiff in error, a citizen of Indiana, doing business at Paducah, Ky., under the name of Charles Cravens & Co., brought this action against the Carter-Crume Company, a West Virginia corporation, the National Mercantile Company, an Ohio corporation, and the Crume .& Sefton .:Manufacturing Comp,any, another West Virginia corporation; to recover the sum of $9,000, which he claimed had inured to him under the guaranty of the Carter-Crume Company that the dividends upon certain stock, sold to him by contract between the National Mercantile Company and himself, should amount to the sum of $9,000 for the year then next ensuing. The National Mercantile Company demurred to the petition, and, the demurrer being sustained, the case was dismissed as to that company. The' Crume & Sefton Manufacturing Company dropped out of the case by consent of parties. The Carter-Crume Company answered the petition, and the plaintiff replied. As no . question arose upon the pleadings, and none of the errors assigned has relation thereto, it is unnecessary to give any detailed statement thereof. The only questions involve<i are such as arose upon the trial of the case. and they are based entirely upon the testimony. The facts as they appeared upon the trial were substantially these: The plaintiff, Cravens, was, and for some time had been, engaged in manufacturing wooden dishes and dish machines at Paducah, Ky., at the time of the making of the contract of guaranty, which was on the 28th day of August, 1896. At that time there were also a number of parties engaged in the same kind o,f business at various other places scattered throughout the United States, principally in the northern portion thereof. One of these was the Carter-Crume Company, which, by Its charter, was required to establish Its principal office at Niagara Falls, N. Y. The president and secretary kept their offices at that place, but the vice preslqent and manager had offices at Dayton, Ohio. Another of such manufacturers was the Crume & Sefton Manufacturing· Company, the locality of whose principal office Is not stated, but It appears to have been doing business at Dayton, Ohio. The National Mercantile Company was an Ohio corporation, having its principal office at Dayton, the majority of the stock In which was owned by parties largely Interested in the other two compan.les just mentioned. William E. Crume, of the Carter-Crume Company, and John C. Crume, of the Crume & Sefton Company, were charter members thereof. William E. Crume was the secretary, and appears to have been largely ln1luential In the direction of the management of the National Mercantile Company. He was also vice president of the Carter-Crume Oompany, and managed Its affairs at Dayton, Ohio. The business for whIch the National Mercantile Company was Incorporated is thus set forth· In the third article of Incorporation: "Said' corporarlon Is formed for the purpose of buying and selllng and dealing in wooden ware and grocers' novelties." It was not a manufacturer. This corporati,)n appears to have been formed for the purpose of creating a common controlling' head, Into connection with which the various manufacturers of wooden dishes throughout the country shOUld, as far as possible, be brought, Whereby the output and sale of their manufactures should be cCFntrolled in respect to quantity and. price. The plaintiff, Cra.vens, after some preliminary negotiations with the parties representing the corporations doing business at Dayton, as above stated, went there on the date above mentioned, August 28, 139'1 !Sl1 the purpose of meeting and conferring with those parties and others