A trust or combine is a combination, contract, understanding or agreement, expressed or implied, between two or more persons, corporations or firms or association of persons or between any one or more of either with one or more of the others, when inimical to public welfare and the effect of which would be:
- (b) To limit, increase or reduce the price of a commodity;
- (c) To limit, increase or reduce the production or output of a commodity;
- (d) To hinder competition in the production, importation, manufacture, transportation, sale or purchase of a commodity;
- (e) To engross or forestall a commodity;
- (f) To issue, own or hold the certificate of stock of any trust and combine within the spirit of this chapter knowing it to be such at the time of the issue or the acquisition or holding such certificate; or
- (g) To place the control to any extent of business or of the proceeds or earnings thereof, contrary to the spirit and meaning of this chapter, in the power of trustees, by whatever name called; or
- (h) To enable or empower any other person than themselves, their proper officers, agents and employees to dictate or control the management of business, contrary to the spirit and meaning of this chapter; or
- (i) To unite or pool interest in the importation, manufacture, production, transportation, or price of a commodity, contrary to the spirit and meaning of this chapter.
Any corporation, domestic or foreign, or any partnership, or individual, or other association, or person whatsoever, who are now, or shall hereafter create, enter into, become a member of, or a party to any trust or combine as hereinabove defined shall be deemed and adjudged guilty of a conspiracy to defraud and shall be subject to the penalties hereinafter provided. Any person, association of persons, corporation, or corporations, domestic or foreign, who shall be a party or belong to a trust and combine shall be guilty of crime and upon conviction thereof shall, for a first offense be fined in any sum not less than one hundred dollars ($100.00) nor more than five thousand dollars ($5,000.00) and for a second or subsequent offense not less than two hundred dollars ($200.00) nor more than ten thousand dollars ($10,000.00), and may be enjoined by a final decree of the chancery court, in a suit by the state on the relation of the attorney general, from the further prosecution of or doing of the acts constituting the trust and combine as defined in this chapter.
Codes, 1892, § 4437; 1906, § 5002; Hemingway's 1917, §§ 3281, 3282; 1930, § 3436; 1942, § 1088; Laws, 1908, chs. 88, 119; Laws, 1926, ch. 182.
Notes of Decisions
BC Rogers Poultry, Inc. v. Wedgeworth, 911 So. 2d 483 (Miss. 2005).
· cites it 4× “Furthermore, Wedgeworth alleged that the defendants violated the provisions of Miss.Code Ann. § 75-21-1 in their formation of trusts and combines in restraint and hindrance of trade.”
Moore Ex Rel. Mississippi v. Abbott Labs., Inc., 900 F. Supp. 26 (S.D. Miss. 1995).
· cites it 6× “Plaintiff asserts that Defendants have thus violated certain provisions of the Mississippi antitrust statute, specifically Miss.Code Ann. §§ 75-21-1 and 75-21-3. Plaintiff seeks recovery for such violations under Miss.”
State of Mississippi v. AU Optronics Corp., 701 F.3d 796 (5th Cir. 2012).
· cites it 4× “, and the Mississippi Antitrust Act (“MAA”), Miss. Code Ann. § 75-21-1 et seq. The MCPA explicitly forbids class actions, see Miss.”
Harrah's Vicksburg Corp. v. Pennebaker, 812 So. 2d 163 (Miss. 2001).
· cites it 2× “Furthermore, the Mississippi Constitution, like the United States Constitution, grants protection for free speech, the right to petition governmental bodies, and the use of the courts to address grievances.”
Mississippi Ex Rel. Hood v. AU Optronics Corp., 134 S. Ct. 736 (2014).
“The State claimed that these actions violated two Mississippi statutes: the Mississippi Antitrust Act, Miss.Code Ann. § 75-21-1 et seq . (2009), and the Mississippi Consumer Protection Act, § 75-24-1 et seq.”
NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware Co., 393 So. 2d 1290 (Miss. 1980).
· cites it 4× “Appellees likewise, in part, rely upon our restraint of trade statute, section 75-21-1, et seq., and argue that the activity complained of operated to restrain their trade and their right to trade.”
Hood v. F. Hoffman-La Roche, Ltd., 639 F. Supp. 2d 25 (D.D.C. 2009).
· cites it 2× “The first section, Miss.Code § 75-21-1, mandates fines in the event of a criminal conviction, but that section does not apply to this civil case.”
Thomas v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., 259 B.R. 571 (S.D. Miss. 2001).
· cites it 2× “The Tobacco defendants argue that Owens Coming’s antitrust claims, brought pursuant to Miss.Code Ann. §§ 75-21-1; 75-21-3; and 75-21-9, “could have been brought” in federal court absent bankruptcy jurisdiction since Mississippi antitrust statutes are patterned after the federal…”
Carder v. BASF Corp., 919 So. 2d 258 (Miss. Ct. App. 2005).
· cites it 3× “In their second amended complaint, the Carders alleged that BASF, a major vitamin and organic chemical distributor, engaged in a conspiracy to fix prices and allocate markets and volume of sales of its products within Mississippi in violation of Mississippi Code Annotated…”
Uniroyal, Inc. v. Hoff & Thames, Inc., 511 F. Supp. 1060 (S.D. Miss. 1981).
· cites it 4× “That Uniroyal’s selling arrangement with Otasco violated Mississippi Code of 1972, Section 75-21-1 et seq.. 4. That Uniroyal breached a contract with Case granting Case an exclusive sales *1063 territory by allowing Otasco to purchase tires from Uniroyal and resale them at…”
— Miss. Code Ann. § 75-21-1(a) — 2 cases
State v. Yazaki North Am., Inc., Leoni Wiring Sys., Inc., Leonische Holding, Inc., G.S.W. Mfg., Inc., G.S. Wiring Sys., Inc., Denso Int'l Am., Inc., & Am. Furukawa, Inc. (Miss. 2020).
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.