In addition to a course in accounting that was introduced into the undergraduate curriculum at Harvard for students expecting to go on into business, the following course taught by a young Law School lecturer, Bruce Wyman (b. 15 June 1875; d. 21 June 1926) was offered to provide future businessmen an overview of commercial and trade law. Students expecting to go to study law were explicitly not encouraged to take the course.
The post begins with the long personal report Wyman wrote about his life and career for the 25th anniversary of his Harvard Class of 1896. A long description, enrollment figures, syllabus, and final exam questions for his 1901-1902 course “Principles of Law in their Application to Industrial Problems” provide the sort of content that Economics in the Rear-view Mirror is proudest of.
We encountered Bruce Wyman in an earlier post. Harvard President Lowell complained about Wyman’s course in the economics department having too soft a grade distribution (making it a “snap” course). Also we discover the somewhat scandalous circumstances that led to Wyman’s forced resignation of his Harvard Law professorship in December 1913.
______________________________
Bruce Wyman
1921 report to Class of 1896
BORN at Boston, Mass., June 15, 1876. Son of Ferdinand A., Harriet A. (Bruce) Wyman.
PREPARED AT Chauncy Hall School, Boston, Mass.
YEARS IN COLLEGE: 1893-96. DEGREES: A.B.; A.M. 1897; LL.B. 1900.
MARRIED: Mary Ethel Andrews, June 30, 1902, Cambridge, Mass. CHILDREN: Andrews, Oct. 3, 1905; Rosemary, Dec. 8, 1908.
OCCUPATION: Counselor at Law and Professor of Law.
ADDRESS: (business) 617-619 Old South Bldg., Boston, Mass.; (home) 15 Winnetaska Road, Waban, Mass.
WHILE the blank for my Twenty-fifth Anniversary Report has been on my desk for months, in my file of matters requiring attention immediately, but always buried by other demands more pressing, I have from time to time asked other members of the class what they regarded as most characteristic of the Twenty-fifth year, and we all agreed that it was the busiest year. We were all of us still endeavoring to do everything to which we had become devoted successively during these years, notwithstanding all the accumulation of our interests; but we realized that in this year we were reaching the climax of what is possible in view of what some one has called the central tragedy of existence, that there are only three hundred and sixty-five days to the year. And hereafter, we appreciated that we must soon be withdrawing from one activity after another as we grew older; just at present, therefore, I seem to be driven by what I must do next, although I look forward to the time when I may begin to choose what I will prefer to do.
Among all the things of interest to me in the years that I was a student at Harvard, getting my A.B. (Summa Cum), A.M. (Final Honors) and LL. B. (Cum Laude), I had thought in that youthful pursuit of scholastic honors that it would be impossible for me to be busier ever again in my life. But when in 1900 upon final graduation I was admitted to the Massachusetts bar and was appointed a lecturer at the Harvard Law School, I found, as we were taught in psychology, that there are powers of man in reserve which may be drawn upon far beyond apparent capacity. Ever since that year I have been engaged both in the practice of law as an art and the teaching of it as a science, endeavoring at times to approximate the impossibility of devoting all of my time to both. The proportions in this have varied — in the first ten years being principally a professor and incidentally a consultant, and now actively a practitioner and incidentally a lecturer. But, fortunately, in either case I have found the vocation more interesting than the avocation.
In these twenty years of teaching, principally at the Harvard Law School and the Law School of University of Chicago, incidentally in the Department of Economics of Harvard College and the School of Engineering of Harvard University, and especially in the Blackstone Institute of Chicago and the Portia Law School of Boston, I have taught the subjects of private business corporation and public service companies, combinations in restraint of trade, administrative law of regulating commissions, contracts and sales, suretyship and mortgage, wills and deeds, conflict of laws and constitutional law. And in all of this I have had the incalculable advantage of discussing these subjects as they have developed in this country with thousands of students.
During this time I have written much on the subjects of the law with which I have identified myself, largely concerning legal control of economic activity, particularly with regard to public utilities and business combinations. Altogether my writings cover some ten thousand pages, in preparation for which I have examined for citation over a hundred thousand decisions. Certain of my treatises of these subjects have come to be regarded as standard, being repeatedly cited by courts and commissions and in briefs and in arguments. The Railroad Rate Regulation in its second edition is used by traffic officials and regulating bodies throughout the country; and the Public Service Companies in its third edition is used in the class room in some twenty five law schools in the United States. Such authority as these books have attained I believe is due quite as much to my experience in practice as to my work in libraries.
My practice has been unusually interesting. I have been at times counsel for most of the New England railway lines and for many of the coastwise navigation companies in a great variety of cases involving important matters of policy; and I have occasionally acted for Western railways and terminals. Recently, I have been more actively engaged as counsel for other public utilities, particularly gas and electric companies in New England and the Central States, and especially concerned with hydro-electric constructions and fuel gas developments. I am at present associated with the management of certain of these and with banking houses that control groups of utilities. And general corporation practice is almost as varied as American affairs; so in the course of years I find myself for a time being in almost every kind of business. For instance, among the papers on my desk at this writing are organizations for a commercial finance company, a national trading syndicate, a chemical works, a textile plant, a chain of hotels and a pulp wood domain.
From the field in which I have specialized I have been called upon for civic services at various times. For a Governor of our Commonwealth, I drafted a Public Service Commission Bill for which I spoke throughout the State. For the National Civic Federation, I acted as counsel for a Committee on Public Utilities in getting together a volume including all of the Commission Laws under analytical headings. For the Directors of the Port of Boston, I have made a report on switching rights looking toward unified terminals. And I later drafted a plan upon which a conference of the Governors of New England upon railroad consolidation was based. I am a member of the Newton Republican City Committee, and I have attended conventions as a delegate.
The stethoscope kept me out of the war; but as a legal adviser to our Draft Board, I saw to it that every lad who belonged there went in. By the chances of practice I am often called upon by national associations and commercial bodies to represent the community in bringing about adjustments with utilities. And I can seldom resist an invitation, sufficiently urged, to speak before associations and conferences, clubs and unions, trade banquets and college commencements. I have taken my part in the drives of recent years, and I have served on boards of charities. For the thesis I am here defending, describing myself without modesty as exemplification, is that it is only by living strenuously that one may enjoy many lives within the span allotted to one.
There is not much left for me to add to all this unblushing autobiography, except those things more personal which round out a life as full as mine. My family becomes increasingly interesting to me, with my son at sixteen just completing his preparation for college and my daughter at twelve just beginning hers. It has been a matter of congratulation to me that I can still scan Virgil and extract cube root, so that I have not yet reached the age where I will be looked down upon by them. A few years ago, after much searching, we bought a long colonial farm house out in Waban on the river, which my wife and I, without architects or decorators, rebuilt and furnished consistently with its style (as you may see from the photographs of it in the files of House Beautiful), into a home to which we hope the children will ever return for the anniversaries of the years to come. The country clubs of the neighborhood provide us with all our outdoor and indoor sports.
My practice in organizing and reorganizing corporations and passing upon their bond issues and financial adjustments gives me the opportunity at times to travel about the United States and to foreign countries and keeps me in touch with lawyers in the large cities and the affairs of the world. With the five thousand Harvard men that I have known in the twenty years that I was at the university as undergraduate and graduate, instructor and professor, I hardly ever go upon a train or steamboat or stop at a hotel or club in these journeyings and conferences, where I do not happen upon some one I have known at college, so that I have come to realize as most of us do the acquaintance one makes in college is the best of all one gains thereby.
Source: Harvard College Class of 1896. Twenty-fifth Anniversary Report (1921), pp. 658-662.
Publications of Bruce Wyman
Books:
Cases on public service companies, public carriers, public works and other public utilities.(With J. H. Beale.) Cambridge, Harv. Law Review Publ. Assoc., 1902: — 2d ed., Ibid ., 1909: — 3d ed. , Ibid ., 1920.
Cases on restraint of trade. Cambridge, Harv. Law Review Publ. Assoc., 1902-04 . 5 pt. [Part 1 (second edition); Part 2; Part 3; Part 4; Part 5]
The principles of the administrative law governing the relations of public officers. St. Paul, Keefe-Davidson, 1903.
A selection of cases on mortgages. Cambridge, Harv. Law Review Publ. Assoc., 1903: — 2d ed., Ibid ., 1903: – revised ed., 1906.
The law of railroad rate regulation. (With J. H. Beale.) Boston, W.J. Nagel, 1906: — 2d ed., New York, Bake , Voorhis, 1915.
Control of the market; a solution of the trust problem. New York, Moffat, Yard, 1911.
The special law governing public service corporations. New York, Baker, Voorhis, 1911. 2 vol. [Volume I; Volume II]
Cases on engineering contracts, a selection from Cases on the Law of Contracts, ed. by Samuel Williston. Boston, Little, Brown, 1904.
Articles:
Equity. Cyclopædia of Government and Law, 1913.
Unfair competition. Annals of American Academy, 1913.
Monopolies. Cyclopædia of Law and Procedure, 1914.
Public service companies. Modern American Law, 1915.
Together with some twenty-five magazine articles on law, economics, government and politics in the Harvard Law Review, Yale Law Journal, Columbia Law Review, Green Bag, Railway Age Gazette and Boston Transcript, 1901-1921.
Source: Harvard College Class of 1896. Twenty-fifth Anniversary Report (1921), p. 714.
______________________________
Course Description
ECONOMICS 21
1901-1902
For Undergraduates and Graduates
Principles of Law in their Application to Industrial Problems. Three times a week. Mr. Wyman.
Course 21 considers certain rules of the law governing the conduct of modern trade and the organization of modern industry. The course is designed especially for students who mean to enter business life, and who wish to secure some contact with the law and some understanding of its methods, such as will be of service in a business career. As it deals with the course of adjudication and legislation on questions of special importance in the economic development of modern times, it will also be of advantage to those who wish to equip themselves for the intelligent discussion of questions having both legal and economic aspects.
In the one part of the course will be considered the law governing certain combinations of capital and of labor. It will be seen what contracts in restraint of trade are considered in violation of the common law, and what it has been attempted to prevent by statutes. It will also appear what action by such combinations is held to be a tort at common law, and what it has been proposed to make so by legislation. It will further be discussed what combinations to control the market are crimes by common law and by statute. The limits to be placed upon competition in trade and the demarcation to be drawn between fraudulent and permitted dealing will be the final subject in this part of the course. The object will be at once to give the students training in the methods of legal reasoning, and to inform them regarding the main principles involved.
In the other part of the course will be considered the general question raised by the association of men for the carrying on of business. This will require a study of the main principles involved in the various forms of the corporation. The stress will be laid upon the conception of the association as an entity, and the liabilities and capacities of the officers and stockholders. It will be considered how far the industrial organism may be affected by judicial decision and by legislation; what tendencies are manifested by the courts; and what policies appear on the part of the legislatures. The object will be to equip the student for better understanding of questions he will meet in a business career, and of the public problems presented by the growth of this form of organization.
The conduct of the course will be by the reading and discussion of selected cases from the law reports and of the text of typical statutes and bills.
Course 21 is open to Seniors and Graduates who have taken Economics 1. Those who propose to study law as a profession are not advised to take it.
Source: Harvard University Archives. Official Register of Harvard University 1901-1902. Box 1. Faculty of Arts and Sciences, Division of History and Political Science (June 21, 1901), University Publications, New Series, No. 16, pp. 47-48.
______________________________
Course Enrollment
1901-1902
ECONOMICS 21
Economics 21. Mr. Wyman. — Principles of Law in their Application to Industrial Problems.
Total 33: 24 Seniors, 6 Juniors, 2 Sophomores, 1 Other.
Source: Harvard University. Report of the President of Harvard College, 1901-1902, p. 78.
______________________________
Syllabus
ECONOMICS 21
CASES ON COMMERCIAL LAW
FIRST TOPIC. — COMPETITION
I. To What Extent Competition Is Allowed
(A) Free Competition
Schoolmasters Case, Y. B. 11 H. 4, 47. A.679
Pudsey Gas Co. v. Bradford, L. R. 15 Eq. 167.
(B) Unfree Competition
Hix v. Gardner, 2 Bulstrode, 115.
B. & L. R. R. v. S. & L. R. R., 2 Gray, 1.
II. By What Methods Competition Is Allowed
(A) Fair Competition
Snowden v. Noah, Hopkins Ch. 347.
Parson v. Gillipsee, 1898, A. C. 239.
Choynski v. Cohen, 39 Cal. 501.
Tallerman v. Dowsing Co., 1900, 1 Ch. 1.
Ayer v. Rushton, 7 Daly, 9.
Johnson v. Hitchcock, 15 Johns. 185. A. 634
White v. Mellen, 1895, A. C. 154.
Ajello v. Worsley, 1898, 1 Ch. 274.
Young v. Hickens, 6 Q. B. 606.
Walsh v. Dwight, 40 App. Div. 513.
Manufacturers Co. v. Longley, 20 R. 1. 87.
(B) Unfair Competition
- By inducing persons dealing with another to commit a breach of legal duty to him.
Hart v. Aldridge, Cowp. 54. A. 584.
Boston Glass Manuf. v. Binney, 4 Pick. 425.
Lumley v. Gye, 2 E. & B. 216. A. 600.
Bowen v. Hall, L. R. 6 Q. B. D. 333. A. 613.
Laly v. Cantwell, 30 Mo. App. 524.
Ashley v. Dixon, 48 N. Y. 430.
Chambers v. Baldwin, 91 Ky. 121.
Heaton Co. v. Dick, 55 Fed. 23.
N. C. & L. R. R. v. McConnell, 82 Fed. 65.
- By influencing persons dealing another who owe no legal duty to him.
a. By fraud.
Blofield v. Payne, 4 B. & A. 410. A. 635.
Coates v. Holbrook, 2 Sandf. Ch. 586.
Materne v. Horwitz, 18 Jones & Sp. 41.
Sawyer Co. v. Hubbard, 32 Fed. 388.
Morgan v. Wendover, 43 Fed. 420.
Wamsutta Mills v. Fox, 49 Fed. 141.
Cook v. Ross, 73 Fed. 203.
Van Camp v. Cruikshank, 90 Fed. 814.
Lawrence Co. v. Tenn Co., 138 U. S. 537.
Johnson v. Ewing, 7 A. C. 219.
Stone v. Carlan, 13 Law Reporter, 360. A. 630.
Boulnois v. Peake, 13 Ch. D. 513 N.
Birmingham Co. v. Powell, 1897, A. C. 710.
National Co. v. Baker, 95 Fed. 135.
Croft v. Day, 7 Beav. 84.
Baker Co. v. Saunders, 80 Fed. 889.
Singer Co. 2. June Co., 163 U. S. 88.
Brewery Co. v. Brewery Co., 1898, 1 Ch. 539.
Canal Co. v. Clark, 13 Wall. 11.
Wotherspoon v. Currie, L. R. 5 H. L. 508.
Waltham Co. v. U. S. Co., 173 Mass. 85.
Reddaway v. Banham, 1896, A. C. 199.
Ratcliffe v. Evans, 1892, 2 Q. B. 524. A. 642.
Rice v. Manley, 67 N. Y. 82. A. 663.
Hughes v. McDonough, 43 N. J. 459. A. 666.
b. By disparagement.
(1) Of person.
Harmon v. Delaney, 2 Str. 898.
Secor v. Harris, 18 Barb. 425. A. 406.
Davy v. Davy, 50 N. Y. S. 161.
Harmon v. Falle, L. R. 4 A. C. 247. A. 640.
Morassee v. Brochu, 151 Mass. 567. A. 652.
Australian Co. v. Bennett, 1894, A. C. 284.
Paris v. Levy, 9 C. B. (n.s.) 342.
Boynton v. Shaw Co., 146 Mass. 221.
Bradstreet Co. v. Gill, 72 Tex. 496.
(2) Of goods.
American Co. v. Gates, 85 Fed. 729.
Jenner v. A’beckett, L. R. 7 Q. B. D. 11.
Malachy v. Soper, 3 Bing. N. C. 371. A. 677.
Young v. Macrae, 3 B. & S. 634.
Western Co. v. Lawes Co., L. R. 9 Exch. 218. A. 623.
Hubbuck v. Wilkinson, 1899, 1 Q. B. 86.
Lubricating Co. v. Oil Co., 42 Hun. 153.
Hatchard v. Mege, L. R. 18 Q. B. D. 771. A. 625.
Lewin v. Welsbach Co., 81 Fed. 904.
c. By coercion.
(1) With force.
Garret v. Taylor, Cr. Jac. 567. A. 675.
Keeble v. Hickeringill, 11 East, 574 n. A. 678.
Tarleton v. McCauley, Peake, 205. A. 678.
Higgins v. O’Donnell, Ir. R. 4 C. L. 91.
Walker v. Cronin, 107 Mass. 555. A. 694.
(2) Without force.
Royalston Bank v. Suffolk Bank, 27 Vt. 505.
Fallon v. Schilling, 29 Kans. 292. A. 729.
Heywood v. Tillson, 75 Me. 225. A. 707.
Crawford v. Wick, 18 Oh. St. 190.
Graham v. St. R. R., 47 La. Ann. 214.
Robinson v. Texas Land Assoc., 40 S. W. 843.
Dels v. Winfree, 80 Tex. 400. A. 704.
Mogul S. S. Co. v. McGregor, L.R. 23 Q.B.D.598. A. 680.
Allen v. Flood, 1898, A. C. 1.
SECOND TOPIC. — CONTRACT IN RESTRAINT OF TRADE
I. Agreement in Total Restraint of Competition
(A) When unreasonable — principal contract
Claygate v. Batchelor, Owen 143.
Toby v. Major, 43 Sol. J. 778.
Oliver v. Gilmore, 52 Fed. 563.
Ice Co. v. Williams, 28 So. 669.
Perkins v. Lyman, 9 Mass. 521.
Presbury v. Bennet, 18 Mo. 50.
Oakes v. Water Co., 143 N. Y. 430.
(B) When reasonable — ancilliary contract
Mitchell v. Reynolds, 1 P. WMS. 181.
Whitney v. Slayton, 40 ME. 224.
Alger v. Thacher, 19 Pick. 51.
Herreschoff v. Boutineau, 17 R. I. 3.
Lufkin Co. v. Frengeli, 57 Oh. St. 596.
Diamond Co. v. Roeber, 106 N. Y. 473.
Baker v. Hedgecock, L. R. 39 Ch. D. 520.
Mills v. Dunham, 1891, 1 Ch. 301.
Mandeville v. Harmon, 42 N. J. Eq. 185.
Nordenfeldt v. Maxim Co., 1894, A. C. 535.
Rogers v. Drury, 57 L. J. Ch. 504.
II. Agreement in Partial Restraint of Competition
(A) When unreasonable — suppression of competition
King v. Maynard, Cro. Car. 231.
Raymond v. Leavitt, 46 Mich. 447.
Young v. Timmins, 1 Cromp. & Jer. 331.
Acheson v. Mallon, 43 N. Y. 147.
Jones v. North, L. R. 19 Eq. 426.
Ch. R. R. v. W. R. R., 61 Fed. 993.
Anderson v. Jett, 89 Ky. 375.
L. R. R. v. St. L. R. R., 63 Fed. 775.
Sandford v. R. R., 24 Pa. 378.
Cravens v. Rodgers, 101 Mo. 247.
State v. Portland Co., 153 Ind. 483.
Thompson 2. Harvey, 1 Show. 2.
Pacific Co. v. Adler, 90 Cal. 110.
Richards v. Desk Co., 87 Wis. 503.
Texas Co. v. Adoue, 83 Tex. 650.
Brigham v. Brands, 119 Mich. 255.
(B) When reasonable — regulation of competition
Freemantle v. Throwsters, 1 Lev. 229.
Stovell v. McCutcheon, 54 S. W. 969.
Crystal Co. v. Brewing Assn., 8 Tex. Civ. 1.
Jones v. Lees, 1 H. & N. 189.
Bowling v. Taylor, 40 Fed. 104.
Heaton Co. v. Specialty Co., 77 Fed. 298.
Wickens v. Evans, 3 Younge & Jerv. 318.
Fowle v. Parke, 131 U. S. 88.
National Co. v. Union Co. 45 Minn. 272.
Collins v. Locke, L. R. 4 A. C. 674.
Gloucester Co. v. Russia Co., 154 Mass. 92.
Clarke v. Frank, 17 Mo. App. 602.
Long v. Towle, 42 Mo. 545.
Walsh v. Dwight, 40 N. Y. App. D. 513.
Catt v. Towle, L. R. 4 Ch. App. 654.
Van Mater v. Babcock, 23 Barb. 633.
Altman v. Royal Acquarium, L. R. 3 Ch. D. 228.
Printing Co. v. Sampson, L. R. 19 Eq. 462.
N. Y. Co. v. Brown, 61 N. J. 536.
Keith v. Optical Co., 48 Ark. 138.
Hounk v. Wright, 77 Miss. 476.
Welch v. Windmill Co., 89 Tex. 653.
THIRD TOPIC. — COMBINATION
I. Combination of Labor
(A) To what extent combination is forbidden
1. When unreasonable restraint
R. v. Journeymen Tailors, 8 Mod. 10.
P. v. Fisher, 14 Wend. 9.
C. v. Carlisle, Brightly 36.
R. v. Bykerdyke, 1 M. & Rob. 179.
R. v. Hewitt, 5 Cox C. C. 162.
Curran v. Gallen, 152 N.Y. 33.
Knights of Labor v. Laborers’ Union, 60 N.Y. Sup. 388.
Lucke v. Assembly, 77 Md. 396.
Plant v. Woods, 176 Mass. 492.
2. When unfair competition
Gunmakers v. Fell, Willes, 384.
R. v. Hibbert, 13 Cox C. C. 82.
R. v. Parnell, 14 Cox C. C. 508.
Dominion S. S. Co. v. McKenna, 30 Fed. 48.
Sherry v. Perkins, 147 Mass. 212.
Crump v. C. 84 Va. 927.
Delz v. Winfree, 80 Tex. 400.
Temperton v. Russell, 1893, 1 Q. B. 715.
U. S. v. Elliot, 62 Fed. 801.
Elder v. Whitesides, 72 Fed. 724.
Murdock v. Walker, 152 Pa. 595.
Vegelahn v. Guntner, 167 Mass. 92.
Doremus v. Hennessey, 176 Ill. 608.
Glass Mfgrs. v. Bottle Blowers, 59 N. J. Eq. 49.
Quinn v. Leatham, 1901, A. C. 495.
(B) To what extent combination is permitted
1. When reasonable restraint
Freemantle v. Silk Throwsters, 1 Lev. 229.
C. v. Hunt, 4 Met. 111.
Snow v. Wheeler, 113 Mass. 179.
Righy v. Connol, L. R. 14 Ch. D. 482.
Meyer v. Stone Cutters, 47 N. J. Eq. 519.
Clemmit v. Watson, 14 Ind. App. 38.
2. When fair competition
Kirkham v. Shawcross, 6 T. R. 103.
R. v. Shepard, 11 Cox C. C. 375.
Rogers v. Evarts, 17 N.Y. Sup. 264.
Coons v. Chrystie, 53 N. Y. Sup. 668.
Vegelahn v. Gunter, 167 Mass. 92.
Lyons v. Wilkins, 67 L. J. Ch. 383.
Tube Co. v. Allied Mechanics, 7 Oh. N. P. 87.
Krebs v. Rosenstein, 66 N. Y. Sup. 42.
Allen v. Flood, 1898, A. C. 1.
II. Combination of Capital.
(A) To what extent combination is forbidden
1. When unreasonable restraint
Anon. 12 Mod. 248.
Cousins v. Smith, 13 Ves. 542.
Bagging Assn. v. Koch, 14 La Ann. 168.
Arnot v. Coal Co., 68 N. Y. 558.
Salt Co. v. Guthrie, 35 Oh. St. 666.
Moore v. Bennet, 140 Ill. 69.
Umston v. Whitelegg, 63 L. T. 455.
Hester v. Brewing Co. 161 Pa. 480.
U. S. v. Joint Traffic Assn., 171 U. S. 505.
Addystone Pipe Co. v. U. S., 175 U. S. 211.
The Wiswall, 86 Fed. 671.
U. S. v. Fuel Co., 105 Fed. 93.
Cummings v. Bluestone Assn., 164 N. Y. 401.
2. When unfair competition
Davenant v. Hurdis, Moore, 576.
Hilton v. Eckersly, 6 E. & B. 47.
Craft v. McConoughy, 79 Ill. 346.
Mattison v. Railway, 3 Oh. Dec. 526.
Olive v. Van Patten, 7 Tex. Civ. App. 630.
Dueber Co. v. Noyes, 21 N. Y. Sup. 341.
P. V. Duke, 44 N. Y. Sup. 336.
Hartnett v. Plumbers’ Assn., 169 Mass. 229.
Bailey v. Plumbers’ Assn., 103 Tenn. 99.
U. S. v. Coal Dealer’s Assn., 85 Fed. 252.
Ertz v. Produce Exchange, 79 Minn. 149.
(B) To what extent combination is permitted
1. When reasonable restraint
R. v. Harrison, 3 Burr, 1322.
Jones v. Fell, 5 Fla. 510.
Ontario Co. v. Merchants Co., 18 Grant Ch. 540.
Skranka v. Scharringhaussen, 8 Mo. App. 522.
Collins v. Locke, L. R. 7 A. C. 674.
Livestock Assn. v. Levy, 54 N. Y. Supr. Ct. 32.
Mogul S. S. Co. v. McGregor, L. R. 23 Q. B. D. 598.
Good v. Daland, 121 N. Y. 1.
U. S. v. Nelson, 52 Fed. 646.
Herriman v. Menzies. 115 Cal. 16.
2. When fair competition
Kirkham v. Shawcross, 6 T. R. 103.
Orr v. Insurance Co. 12 La Ann. 255.
Bowen v. Matheson, 14 Allen, 499.
Ladd v. Cotton Press, 53 Tex. 172.
Mogul S. S. Co. v. McGregor, L. R. 23 Q. B. D. 598.
McCauley v. Tierney, 19 R. I. 255.
Brewster v. Miller. 101 Ky. 368.
Boots Co. v. Grundy. 82 L. T. 769.
FOURTH TOPIC. — THE CORPORATION
I. The Nature of the Corporation
(A) The idea of the corporation
1. Definition of the corporation
Liverpool Ins. Co. v. Mass., 10 Wall, 566. S. 1.
Thomas v. Dakin, 22 Wend. 9. S. 4.
Gifford v. Livingstone, 2 Denio, 395. S. 20.
Carr v. Inglehart, 30 Oh. 457. S. 875.
Trustees v. Flint, 13 Metc. 539. S. 876.
Moyer v. Slate Co., 71 Pa. 293. S. 883.
2. Distinction between corporation and shareholders
Waring v. Cataba Co., 2 Bay, 109. S. 39.
Foster v. Commissioners, 1894, 1 Q. B. 516. S. 40.
Williamson v. Smoot, 7 Martin, 31. S. 24.
Burton v. Hoffman, 61 Wis. 20. S. 33.
Moore etc. Co. v. Towers etc. Co., 87 Ala. 206. S. 45.
Salomon v. Salomon Co., 1897, A. C. 22. S. 1143.
Montgomery v. Forbes, 148 Mass. 249. S. 94.
P. v. England, 27 Hun. 139. S. 593.
Sandford v. McArthur, 13 B. Mon. 413. S. 600.
(B) The body corporate
1. Organization of the corporation
Franklin Bridge Co. v. Wood, 14 Ga. 80. S. 65.
State v. Dawson, 16 Ind. 40. S. 69.
Newcomb v. Reed, 12 Allen, 362. S. 77.
Finnegan v. Noerenberg, 52 Minn. 239. S. 87.
Rutherford v. Hill, 22 Ore. 218. S. 109.
Slocum v. Warren, 10 R. I. 116. S. 134.
Bank v. Silk Co., 3 Metc. 287. S. 138.
2. Funds of the corporation
Russell v. Temple, 3 Dane Abr. 108. S. 23.
White v. Salisbury, 33 Mo. 150. S. 1069.
C. v. Crompton, 137 Pa. 138. S. 1073.
Music v. Corey, 129 Mass. 435. S. 1120.
Bank v. Paper Co., 19 R. I. 139. S. 221.
Curries Case, 3 De G., J. & S. 367. S. 817.
Coit v. Gold Amalgamating Co., 119 U. S. 343. S. 839.
Malting Co. v. Brewing Co., Minn. S. 831.
Handley v. Stutz. 139 U. S. 417. S. 844.
Harger v. McCullogh, 2 Denio, 119. S. 839.
Taft v. H. P. & F. R. Co., 8 R. I. 310. S. 347.
C. v. Smith, 10 Allen, 449. S. 190.
Parsons v. Hayes, 11 Abb. N. C. 419. S. 314.
II. The Powers of the Corporation
(A) The capacity of the corporation
1. Rights of the corporation
Downing v. Mt. Washington Rd., 40 N. H. 230. S. 148.
Stockton Bank v. Staples, 98 Cal. 189. S. 179.
Aurora Society v. Paddock, 80 Ill. 264. S. 189.
Bradbury v. Canoe Club, 153 Mass. 77. S. 196.
Norris v. Staps, Hobart 211. S. 209.
Bank v. Paterson, 7 Cranch, 299. S. 213.
Greenwood v. Freight Co., 105 U. S. 13. S. 720.
Sinking Fund Case, 99 U. S. 100. S. 777.
Eagle Co. v. Ohio, 153 U. S. 446. S. 704.
2. Rights of the majority
Dudley v. High School, 9 Bush, 576. S. 224.
Ashton v. Burbank, 2 Dill, 435. S. 229.
H. & H. H. R. R. v. Croswell, 5 Hill, 383. S. 230.
Treadwell v. Salesbury Co., 7 Gray, 293. S. 243.
Taylor v. Earle, 8 Hun. 1. S. 246.
Peabody v. Flint, 6 Allen, 52. S. 263.
Menier v. Telegraph Works, L. R. 9 Ch. App. 350. S. 287.
Foss v. Harbottle, 2 Hare, 401. S. 267.
(B) The incapacity of the corporation
1. Ultra vires
Monument Bank v. Globe Works, 101 Mass. 57. S. 451.
Long v. Georgia Co., 91 Ala. 519. S. 457.
St. L. R. R. v. T. H. R. R., 145 U. S. 393. S. 503.
Marble Co. v. Harvey, 92 Tenn. 116. S. 511.
Washburn Co. v. Bartlett, 3 N. Dak. 138. S. 515.
Davis v. O. C. R. R., 431 Mass. 258. S. 564.
Bates v. Beach Co., 109 Cal. 160. S. 941.
2. Effect of ultra vires
S. v. Oberlin Assn., 35 Oh. St. 258. S. 375.
Wheeler v. Pullman Co., 143 Ill. 379.
Morville v. Tract Society, 123 Mass. 129. S. 588.
Packet Co. v. Shaw, 37 Wis. 655. S. 590.
McCutcheon v. Capsule Co., 37 U. S. App. 586. S. 422.
FIFTH TOPIC. — THE CONSOLIDATION
I. Without Incorporation
(A) Trust agreement
Shepaug Voting Trust Cases, 60 Conn. 553. S. 1032.
Mobile etc. R. R. v. Nicholas, 98 Ala. 92. S. 1043.
Gould v. Head, 38 Fed. 886.
P. v. Sugar Refining Co., 121 N. Y. 582. S. 943.
State v. Distilling Co., 29 Neb. 700.
State v. Standard Oil Co., 49 Oh. St. 137.
Distilling Co. v. Importing Co., 86 Wis. 352.
(B) Partnership agreement
Whittenton Mills v. Upton, 10 Gray 582. S. 935.
Tram Co. v. Bancroft, 16 Tex. C. App. 170.
Mallory v. Oil Works, 86 Tenn. 598.
Lowry v. Tile Assn., 98 Fed. 817.
Addystone Pipe Co. v. U. S., 175 U. S. 211.
Stockton v. Central R. R., 50 N. J. Eq. 53.
U.S. v. Joint Traffic Assn., 171 U. S. 505.
II. With Incorporation
(A) Holding corporation
Pauley v. Coronado Beach Co., 56 Fed. 428.
Milbank v. N. Y. etc. R. R., 64 How. Pr. 20. S. 963.
De La Vigne Co. v. German Institution, 175 U.S. 40.
P. v. Gas Trust, 130 Ill. 268. S. 952.
National Harrow Co. v. Hench, 76 Fed. 667.
(B) Operating corporation
Shade Roller Co. v. Cushman, 143 Mass. 353.
Oakdale Co. v. Garst, 18 R. I. 484.
Richardson v. Buhl, 77 Mich. 632.
McCutcheon v. Capsule Co., 37 U. S. App. 586.
Trenton Potteries v. Oliphant, 58 N. J. Eq. 507.
Distilling Co. v. P., 156 Ill. 448.
Louisville & Nashville R. R. v. Kentucky, 161 U. S. 677.
Keokuk etc. R. R. Co. v. Missouri, 152 U. S. 301.
Source: Harvard University Archives. Syllabi, course outlines and reading lists in Economics 1895-2003, Box 1, Folder “Economics 1901-1902”.
______________________________
Mid-year Examination
ECONOMICS 21
1901-1902
Answer seven questions.
- The A Railroad Company had by express provision of its charter the exclusive right of transporting persons and property from X to Z by railroad. Later the B Street Railway Company built a line from X to Y; the C Street Railway Company built a line from Y to Z; and the B and C Companies under an agreement began to run through street cars from X to Z. Can the A Company have an injunction against the B and C Companies for this competition?
- A and B were rival manufacturers of infant foods. B inserted this advertisement: The A food is less nutritious and less healthful than the B food; therefore, all persons are advised not to buy the A food, but to insist on getting the B food. A thereupon sued B, alleging that an expert examination would prove the A food better than the B food; and that by means of the circulation of these misstatements by B his trade had been ruined. Should A recover damages against B?
- A sold button fastening machines to shoe manufacturers. Each manufacturer agreed with A that all staples to be used in the machines should be bought of A. B began the sale of staples to these manufacturers although he knew of the contract between these manufacturers and A. Can A have an injunction against B for such competition?
- B, a large manufacturer of saleratus, made a contract with certain jobbers that they should not sell the saleratus of A below a certain price and not more than a certain amount of the saleratus of A in any event. Can A sue B for the damage to his business as consequence to this agreement?
- Certain steamship companies formed themselves into the B Steamship Conference. It was agreed amongst the members of the conference that if any rival line entered into competition with them they would cut the rates one-half, also they would raise the rates to double for any shippers who shipped by the new line. Later A entered into competition with a new line against the B Conference; the B Conference put the proposed rates in force; and A was thereby ruined. Can A sue the B Conference?
- A and B and C were all that were engaged in the ice business in X. B sold A his ice-houses, teams, etc., and B agreed with A that he would not engage in the ice business in X for five years. C also sold A his ice-houses, teams, etc., and made the same agreement with A. Are these agreements valid?
- A, a manufacturer of pianos, enters into a contract with a jobber, B, that B shall have exclusive right to sell the pianos at wholesale in Massachusetts. B enters into a contract with a retailer C, that C shall sell the pianos in Boston at not less than a certain price. Are these contracts valid?
- The B Union struck on the A Railroad because the A Railroad took cars from another railroad where the men had gone out for higher wages. The B Union posted men at the yards to persuade new men not to take their places. Can the A Railroad have an injunction?
Source: Harvard University Archives. Harvard University Mid-Year Examination Papers, 1852-1943. Box 6, Bound volume, Mid-year Examination Papers, 1901-02. Sub-volume Papers Set for Final Examinations in History, Government, Economics, … in Harvard College (January 1902).
______________________________
Year-end Examination
ECONOMICS 21
1901-1902
Answer seven questions.
- By a contract between a fuel company and an association composed of ten concerns engaged in producing coal and coke in a certain district, the company was to handle for a term of years the entire output of the mines of the association intended for the western market. The amount to be furnished by each member of the association was to be fixed by its executive committee; the fuel company was to fix a uniform price from time to time at which it should sell the products turned over. The net profits of the fuel company less its commission were to be turned back to the members of the association pro rata. Is this agreement enforceable?
- A retail lumber association agrees not to buy lumber of any wholesale lumber dealer who sells direct to customers. A certain wholesale dealer began to sell to customers direct in car load lots only. Thereupon the executive committee of the lumber association sent notices to all members, warning them not to buy any lumber of this wholesale dealer upon penalty of a fine to be paid in accordance with the by-laws. May the wholesale dealer sue the members of the association for damages caused thereby to his business?
- An act of legislature provided: “That X, Y, and Z, proprietors of the Charles River Marshes, are hereby constituted a corporation under the name of the Marsh Company, with authority to assess and collect from each member ten per cent. upon the valuation of his land, to be expended in making and maintaining a street across the same.” X and Y, after giving Z notice of the proposed meeting, meet, organize the corporation, and vote an assessment upon all the members for the amount specified in the charter. Suit against Z to collect the assessment. What decision?
- A merchant conveys all the property of his business to a corporation organized by himself and his two brothers, with one share subscribed by each of the three. By vote of them as directors, the merchant takes in payment for the property the debenture bonds of the company at proper valuation. Later the whole capital stock of the corporation is subscribed by outside parties at par. Still later the corporation incurs large debts to bankers. After all this the corporation goes into bankruptcy, with small assets. What is the right to these assets of the merchant? of the bankers? of the stockholders?
- In a certain banking corporation with various branches the conduct of the business was as follows: The manager of each branch made to the general manager of the corporation a weekly statement; from these statements the general manager made up a monthly summary for the Board of Directors to examine. The general manager left the weekly statements on the file in the directors’ room. Later the bank failed; it appeared that the general manager had been a rascal from first to last; and that his summaries had been false all the time. Now, the receiver of the banking corporation sues the directors for losses due to their neglect in office. What decision?
- The A railroad was chartered to run from X to Y; the stock was all subscribed and the road was built. Later a consolidation was proposed with the B railroad which ran from Y to Z. An act was passed by the Legislature of the State in which both railroads A and B lie, which allowed a new corporation, the C railroad, to be formed to take over both the A and B railroad, and which directed the exchange of the capital stock of each of the railroads A and B share for share for the stock of the new corporation C. The act provided that it should take effect when accepted by a majority of each corporation. A majority is found in each corporation for the scheme; but a minority object in each. Can the scheme be carried out?
- On account of a sudden great demand for coal, the A railroad company, running through a coal-mining region, was unable to supply enough cars to carry all the coal offered by the mine owners. A bought and opened a new coal-mine, and presented to the company coal for shipment; the company declined to receive the coal until its old customers were supplied with cars. Can A legally object?
- A corporation is formed in California to construct a large storage basin, and conduct the water therefrom by means of a canal to the valley for the purpose of irrigation. The company has given to it the right of eminent domain. When its works are constructed the company publishes the following schedule: “Any consumer must pay to the company $10 per acre in advance every ten years and $1.50 in advance per acre each year. Twenty-five per cent. deduction will be allowed to consumers having 100 acres or over. [”] It is proved that if all consumers, paid $2.50 per acre each year the company would make about 9% on its capital stock. Q, a farmer, applies for water. His farm is, 50 acres in extent. What objections may he bring forward against this schedule?
Source: Harvard University Archives. Harvard University Examination Papers, 1873-1915. Box 6, Bound volume, Examination Papers, 1902-03. Sub-volume Papers Set for Final Examinations in History, Government, Economics, … in Harvard College (June 1902).
Image Source: Harvard Seal detail from the Harvard Law School Yearbook 1949 cover.
