In Shawnee Compress Co. v. Anderson53 it was held that while a company may, in connection with the sale of its business and good-will, covenant not to re-enter the business for a time or within a territory sufficiently broad to protect the vendee, a covenant so made is in violation of the act of 1890 if it be executed in pursuance of a plan to assemble under one management or ownership a business extending over two or more States.

In Connolly v. Union Sewer Pipe Co.54 the plaintiff in error defended a suit upon certain promissory notes upon the ground that the company to which they were given was at the time in combination with other companies in. violation of the Anti-Trust Act. The defense was overruled by the Supreme Court on the ground that the suit was not an action on the part of the company to enforce obligations directly growing out of an illegal combination. " The purchases by the defendants [plaintiffs in error] had no necessary or direct connection with the alleged illegal combination, for the contracts between the defendants and the plaintiff could have been proven without any reference to the arrangement whereby the latter became an illegal combination."

In Continental Wall Paper Co. v. Voight55 the case was distinguished from the Connolly case, the court holding that a recovery upon an account for goods sold and delivered by a corporation created as a means for bringing about a combination of wall paper manufacturers in violation of the act of 1890, could not be had, where, to the knowledge of both parties, the account had a direct reference to and was in execution of the agreements constituting the illegal combination.

53 200 U. S. 423; 28 Sup. Ct. Rep. 572; 52 L. ed. 865.

54 184 U. S. 540; 22 Sup. Ct. Rep. 431 ; 46 L ed. 679. 53 212 U. S. 515; 20 Sup. Ct. Rep. 280; 53 L. ed. 486.

In this case it was admitted by the demurrer that the plaintiff was the selling agent of a combination of wall paper manufacturers and that the defendants were virtually compelled to sign a jobbers agreement which bound them to buy from the plaintiff at fixed prices the paper needed by them, and not to sell the same at lower prices or upon better terms than these or upon which the plaintiff sold to dealers other than jobbers.56