People ex rel. Akin v. Butler St. Foundry & Iron Co.

• Citation: 201 Ill. 236,66 N.E. 349
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court
• Decision Date: 18 February 1903
• Parties: PEOPLE ex rel. AKIN v. BUTLER ST. FOUNDRY & IRON CO.

201 Ill. 236

66 N.E. 349

PEOPLE ex rel. AKIN

v.BUTLER ST. FOUNDRY & IRON CO.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

Feb. 18, 1903.

Appeal from circuit court, Cook county; Elbridge Hanecy, Judge.

Action of debt by the people, on the relation of Edward C. Akin, attorney general, against the Butler Street Foundry & Iron Company. From a judgment in favor of defendant, plaintiff appeals. Reversed.H. J. Hamlin, Atty. Gen., and Charles S. Deneen, State's Atty. (Edward S. Elliott and George B. Gillespie, of counsel), for appellant.

Moran, Mayer & Meyer, for appellee.

This is an action of debt, brought by the people of the state of Illinois, at the relation of the attorney general, against the Butler Street Foundry & Iron Company, a corporation organized under the laws of this state, with its place of business in Cook county, to recover a penalty of $50 per day for a failure on its part to comply with the provisions of sections 7a and 7b of ‘An act to provide for the punishment of persons, copartnerships or corporations forming pools, trusts and combines, and mode of procedure and rules of evidence in such cases,’ approved June 11, 1891, as amended June 20, 1893, and June 10, 1897, by making answer through its president, secretary, treasurer, or one of its directors, under oath, to the letter of inquiry of Secretary of State as to whether it had become a member of any trust, pool, combine, etc. A general demurrer to the declaration having been overruled, the plea of nil debet was filed, and a jury having been waived, a trial was had before the court, which resulted in a finding and judgment in favor of the defendant, and the case has been brought by the plaintiff, by appeal, direct to this court, on the ground that the constitutionality of the statute upon which said action is based is involved, which question is properly preserved by the holdings of the court upon propositions of law given and refused. It was stipulated upon the trial that the evidence showed a violation of the statute if the court should hold the statute constitutional, and if a judgment should be rendered against the defendant it should be for the sum of $50 and costs. It was further stipulated that the court should consider a witness upon behalf of the defendant as having testified that the defendant was not a member of any trust, pool, or combine, in violation of sections 1 and 2 of the act of 1891, and that the defendant had not violated either of said sections 1 and 2, provided the court should hold such testimony to be material. The statute upon which the action is based is as follows (the amendment of June 20, 1893, being sections 7a and 7b, and that of June 10, 1897, in italics):

‘Sec. 1. If any corporation organized under the laws of this or any other state or country, for transacting or conducting any kind of business in this state, or any partnership or individual or other association of persons whosoever, shall create, enter into, become a member of or a party to any pool, trust, agreement, combination, confederation or understanding with any other corporation, partnership, individual or any other person or association of persons, to regulate or fix the price of any article of merchandise or commodity, or shall inter into, become a member of or party to any pool, agreement, contract, combination or confederation to fix or limit the amount or quantity of any article, commodity or merchandise to be manufactured, mined, produced or sold in this state, such corporation, partnership, or individual or other association or persons shall be deemed and adjudged guilty of a conspiracy to defraud, and be subject to indictment and punishment, as provided in this act: provided, however, that in the mining, manufacture or production of articles of merchandise, the cost of which is mainly made up of wages, it shall not be unlawful for persons, firms or corporations doing business in this state to enter into joint arrangements of any sort, the principal object or effect of which is to maintain or increase wages.

‘Sec. 2. It shall not be lawful for any corporation to issue or to own trust certificates, or for any corporation, agent, officer or employees, or the directors or stockholders of any corporation, to enter into any combination, contract or agreement with any person or persons, corporation or corporations, or with any stockholder or director thereof, the purpose and effect of which combination, contract or agreement shall be to place the management or control of such combination or combinations, or the manufactured product thereof, in the hands of any trustee or trustees, with the intent to limit or fix the price, or lessen the production and sale of any article of commerce, use or consumption, or to prevent, restrict or diminish the manufacture or output of any such article.

‘Sec. 3. If a corporation or a company, firm or association shall be found guilty of a violation of this act, it shall be punished by a fine in any sum not less than five hundred dollars ($500), nor more than two thousand dollars ($2,000), for the first offense; and for the second offense not less than two thousand dollars ($2,000), nor more than five thousand dollars ($5,000); and for the third offense not less than five thousand dollars ($5,000), nor more than ten thousand dollars ($10,000); and for every subsequent offense and conviction thereof, shall be liable to a fine of fifteen thousand dollars ($15,000): provided, that in all cases under this act either party shall have the right of trial by jury.

‘Sec. 4. Any president, manager, director or other officer or agent or receiver of any corporation, company, firm or association, or any member of any company, firm or association, or any individual, found guilty of a violation of the first section of this act, may be punished by a fine of not less than two hundred dollars ($200), nor to exceed one thousand dollars ($1,000), or be punished by confinement in the county jail not to exceed one year, or both, in the discretion of the court before which such conviction may be had.

‘Sec. 5. Any contract or agreement in violation of any provision of the preceding sections of this act shall be absolutely void.

‘Sec. 6. Any purchaser of any article or commodity from any individual, company or corporation transacting business contrary to any provision of the preceding sections of this act shall not be liable for the price or payment of such article or commodity, and may plead this act as a defense to any suit for such price or payment.

‘Sec. 7. The fines hereinbefore provided for may be recovered in an action of debt, in the name of the people of the state of Illinois. If, upon the trial of any cause instituted under this act to recover the penalties as provided for in section 3, the jury shall find for the people, and that the defendant has been before convicted of a violation of the provisions of this act, they shall return such finding with their verdict, stating the number of times they find defendant so convicted, and shall assess and return with their verdict the amount of the fine to be imposed upon the defendant in accordance with and section 3: provided, that in all cases under the provisions of this act, a preponderance of evidence in favor of the people shall be sufficient to authorize a verdict and judgment for the people.

‘Sec. 7a. It shall be the duty of the Secretary of State, on or about the first day of September of each year, to address to the president, secretary or treasurer of each incorporated company doing business in this state whose post-office address is known or may be ascertained a letter of inquiry as to whether the said corporation has all or any part of its business or interest in or with any trust, combination or association of persons or stockholders, as named in the preceding provisions of this act, and to require an answer, under oath, of the president, secretary or treasurer, or any director of said company; a form of affidavit shall be enclosed in said letter of inquiry, as follows:

‘Affidavit.

‘State of Illinois, county of _____, ss.

‘I, _____, do solemnly swear that I am the _____ (president, secretary, treasurer or director) of the corporation known and styled _____, duly incorporated under the laws of _____ on the _____ day of _____, 18__, and now transacting or conducting business in the state of Illinois, and that I am duly authorized to represent said corporation in the making of this affidavit; and I do further solemnly swear that the said _____ known and styled as aforesaid, has not, since the ___ day of _____ (naming the day upon which this act takes effect) created, entered into or become a member of or a party to, and was not, on the ___ day of _____ nor at any day since that date, and is not now, a member of or a party to any pool, trust, agreement, combination, confederation or understanding with any other corporation, partnership, individual or any other person or association of persons, to regulate or fix the price of any article or merchandise or commodity; and that it has not entered into or become a member of or a party to any pool, trust, agreement, contract, combination or confederation to fix or limit the amount or quantity of any article, commodity, or merchandise to be manufactured, mined, produced or sold in this state; and that it has not issued and does not own any trust certificates, and for any corporation, agent, officer or employee or for the directors or stockholders of any corporation, has not entered into and is not now in any combination, contract or agreement with any person or persons, corporation or corporations, or with any stockholder or director thereof, the purpose and effect of which said combination, contract or agreement would be to place the management or control of such combination or combinations, or the manufactured prodduct thereof, in the hands of any trustee or trustees with the intent to limit or fix the price or lessen the...