State ex rel. Astor v. Schlitz Brewing Co.

• Decision Date: 18 June 1900
• Citation: 59 S.W. 1033,104 Tenn. 715
• Parties: STATE ex rel. ASTOR v. SCHLITZ BREWING CO. et al.
• Court: Tennessee Supreme Court

59 S.W. 1033

104 Tenn. 715

STATE ex rel. ASTOR v. SCHLITZ BREWING CO. et al.

Supreme Court of Tennessee.

June 18, 1900

Appeal from chancery court, Shelby county; F. H. Heiskell Chancellor.

Bill by the state of Tennessee, on the relation of W. B. Astor, to restrain the Schlitz Brewing Company and another from transacting business in the state.From an order sustaining a demurrer to the bill, both complainant and defendants appeal.Reversed.

W. W Goodwing and the Attorney General, for relator.L & E Lehman, for defendants.

CALDWELL J.

The bill in this cause was brought in the name of the state of Tennessee, on the relation of W. B. Astor, against the Schlitz Brewing Company, a foreign corporation, with its situs in Milwaukee, Wis., and Sigmund Roescher, its agent in Tennessee.The complainant alleged, as matter of fact, in substance, that the defendants, as principal and agent, had entered into, and for years had enforced, and were still enforcing, an arrangement, contract, agreement, trust, or combination with the Tennessee Brewing Company, a domestic corporation, with its situs and principal place of business at Memphis, Tenn., and with other brewers, for the purpose and with the tendency and effect of lessening competition in the importation and sale of beer, and of dominating and controlling the price thereof in this state, and charged, as matter of law, in substance, that the Schlitz Brewing Company thereby violated the provisions of section 1 of chapter 94 of the Acts of 1897, and, as declared in section 2 of that act, forfeited the right to do business in this state, and prayed that the Schlitz Brewing Company be forever restrained by injunction from transacting business in this state.The defendants demurred to the bill on numerous grounds, some assailing the act referred to as unconstitutional in several particulars, some denying the jurisdiction of the chancery court, and others disputing the sufficiency of the facts alleged.The chancellor sustained one assignment of demurrer as to the unconstitutionality of the act, and one as to the want of jurisdiction of the court, but overruled all the others.Both the complainant and the defendants have appealed, and their assignments of error, when combined, present all the questions raised by the demurrer, except those relating to the sufficiency of the facts alleged in the bill.

The act whose provisions are invoked by the complainant, and whose constitutionality is called in question by the defendants, is familiarly known as the "Anti-Trust Statute of 1897."Its terms, title, and body are as follows:

"An act to declare unlawful and void all arrangements and contracts, agreements, trusts or combinations made with a view to lessen, or which tend to lessen free competition in the importation or sale of articles imported into this state; or in the manufacture or sale of articles of domestic growth or of domestic raw material; to declare unlawful and void all arrangements, contracts, agreements, trusts or combinations between persons or corporations, designed, or which tend to advance, reduce or control the price of such product or articles to producer or consumer of any such product or articles; to provide for forfeiture of the charter and franchise of any corporation, organized under the laws of this state, violating any of the provisions of this act; to prohibit every foreign corporation, violating any of the provisions of this act, from doing business in this state; to require the attorney general of this state to institute legal proceedings against any such corporations violating the provisions of this act, and to enforce the penalties prescribed; to prescribe penalties for any violation of this act; to authorize any person or corporation, damaged by any such trust, agreement or combination, to sue for the recovery of such damages, and for other purposes.

"Section 1.Be it enacted by the general assembly of the state of Tennessee, and it is hereby enacted by the authority of the same, that from and after the passage of this act, all arrangements, contracts, agreements, trusts or combinations between persons or corporations, made with the view to lessen, or which tend to lessen, full and free competition in the importation or sale of articles imported into this state, or in the manufacture or sale of articles of domestic growth or of domestic raw material, and all arrangements, contracts, agreements, trusts or combinations between persons or corporations designed, or which tend, to advance, reduce, or control the price or cost to the producer or to the consumer of any such product or article, are hereby declared to be against public policy, unlawful and void.

"Sec. 2.Be it further enacted, that any corporation chartered under the laws of this state which shall violate any of the provisions of this act, shall thereby forfeit its charter and its franchise, and its corporate existence shall thereupon cease and determine.Every foreign corporation which shall violate any of the provisions of this act, is hereby denied the right to do, and is prohibited from doing business in this state.It is hereby made the duty of the attorney general of this state to enforce the provisions by due process of law.

"Sec. 3.Be it further enacted, that any violation of the provisions of this act shall be deemed, and is hereby declared to be, destructive of full and free competition and a conspiracy against trade, and any person or persons who may engage in any such conspiracy, or who shall as principal, manager, director or agent, or in any other capacity, knowingly carry out any of the stipulations, purposes, prices, rates, or orders made in furtherance of such conspiracy, shall, upon conviction, be punished by a fine of not less than one hundred dollars or more than five thousand dollars, and by imprisonment in the penitentiary not less than one year, nor more than ten years; or in the judgment of the court by either such fine or imprisonment.

"Sec. 4.Be it further enacted, that the provisions of this act shall not apply to agricultural products or live stock while in the possession of the producer or raiser.

"Sec. 5.Be it further enacted, that any person or persons, or corporation, that may be injured or damaged by any such arrangement, contract, agreement, trust or combination, described in section 1 of this act, may sue for and recover, in any court of competent jurisdiction in this state, of any person, or persons, or corporation operating such trust or combination, the full consideration or sum paid by him or them for any goods, wares, merchandise or articles, the sale of which is controlled by such combination or trust.

"Sec. 6.Be it further enacted, that it shall be the duty of the judge of the circuit and criminal courts of this state specially to instruct grand juries as to the provisions of this act.

"Sec. 7.Be it further enacted, that all laws and parts of laws in conflict with the provisions of this act, be and the same are hereby repealed.

"Sec. 8.Be it further enacted, that this act take effect from and after its passage, the public welfare requiring it.

"Passed April 5th, 1897.

"Morgan C. Fitzpatrick,

"Speaker of the House of Representatives.

"John Thompson,

"Speaker of the Senate.

"Approved April 30th, 1897.

"Robert L. Taylor, Governor."

The fourth assignment of demurrer, which is one of the two sustained below, is that the act just quoted "is unconstitutional and void for the reason that the caption thereof recites it to be an act to declare unlawful and void all arrangements, contracts, agreements, trusts, or combinations such as is averred the Schlitz Brewing Company and Sigmund Roescher, its agent, entered into with the Tennessee Brewing Company, and the fourth section of said act provides that the provisions thereof shall not apply to agricultural products or live stock while in the hands of the producer or raiser, which makes it obvious that under the title of one subject, forbidding all trusts, agreements contracts, or combinations aforesaid, an exception or limitation is made in said fourth section, not in accord with or in pursuance of the title of said act, and that therefore said act embraces in the fourth section a subject not contemplated in, but in direct antagonism to, the specified terms of the said title."The particular provision of the constitution here referred to by the demurrants is article 2, § 17, cl. 2, which declares that "no bill shall become a law which embraces more than one subject, that subject to be expressed in the title"; and the propositionthey present in this assignment of demurrer is that the fourth section of the present act violates that provision by introducing a subject not embraced in the title, and that the whole act is therefore unconstitutional and void.The proposition is unquestionably a sound one, if it be true, as a fact, that section 4 of the act introduces a subject not embraced in the title; for that requirement of the organic law is mandatory, both as to the singleness of the subject of the bill and as to the expression of that subject in the title, and if a given bill embraces two subjects, or but one subject, and it is not expressed in the title, the attempted legislation is invalid in toto.Cannon v. Mathes, 8 Heisk. 504; State v. McCann, 4 Lea, 1; Murphy v. State, 9 Lea, 379;Ragio v. State,86 Tenn. 275, 6 S.W. 401;Manufacturing Co. v. Falls,90 Tenn. 482, 16 S.W. 1045;State v. Yardley,95 Tenn. 546, 32 S.W. 481, 34 L. R. A. 656.The title to this act is unnecessarily full and extended, in that it needlessly undertakes to epitomize and recite in considerable detail the legislation to follow.Black, Const. Law, § 107;State v. Brown,103 Tenn. 450, ...