—was the case of a combination among grain dealers by which competition was stifled, the court saying: "So long as competition was free, the interest of the public was safe. The laws of trade, in connection with the rigor of competition, was all the guaranty the public required, but the secret combination created by the contract destroyed all competition and created a …

And a contract entered into by the grain dealers of a town, which, on its face, indicates that they have formed a partnership for the purpose of dealing in grain, but the true object of which is to form a secret combination, which would stifle all competition, and enable the parties, by secret and fraudulent means, to control the price of grain, costs of storage, and expense of …

—which related to a combination between all the grain dealers of a particular town to stifle competition, and to obtain control of the price of grain, the Supreme Court of Illinois said: "While the argument, upon its face, would seem to indicate that the parties had formed a copartnership for the purpose of trading in grain, yet, from the terms of the contract, and the other proof in …

The illegality of such agreements has commonly been assumed without consideration of the reasonableness of the price levels established.

Whatever tends to destroy competition and create a monopoly is contrary to public policy and therefore unlawful

—the necessity of deciding it; but we will add to what has been said, that if counsel desired us to decide the question, a demurrer to the declaration and abiding by the demurrer, in case the trial court overruled it, would have effected their purpose; and further, we understand the law to be, that a contract not in general restraint of trade, but only in partial and particular …

—was an action for a division of profits under a contract between grain dealers at the town of Rochelle, in Illinois, in which it was provided: "Each separate firm shall conduct their own business as heretofore, as though there were no partnership in appearance, keep their accounts, pay their own expenses, ship their own grain, and furnish their own funds to do business …

—the court applied a legal framework for assessing restraints of trade in which it asked whether the restraint in question afforded only “fair protection” to the interests of the contracting parties, and did not constitute so great a restraint as to “interfere with the interest of the public.”

—five competing grain dealers entered into an agreement "for the purpose of systematically pursuing the grain trade in Rochelle and for mutual protection against losses."

[HTML] A Treatise on Trusts and Monopolies: Containing an Exposition of the Rule of …