Sec 444

Whether an agreement between parties not to bid for a particular article but to make a lumping tender is illegal, depends upon whether the tendency of the agreement is to suppress competition. Supposing that other parties are not in this way deterred from tions and public proposals are void.

Agreement not to compete but make joint tender not invalid.

1 Walter v. Gernant, 13 Penn. St. 15; Sharp v. Long, 28 Penn. St. 433.

2 Dick v. Cooper, 24 Penn. St. 217; Abbey v. Dewey, 25 Penn. St. 413.

3 Atcheson v. Mallon, 43 N. Y. 147.

4 People v. Stephens, 71 N. Y. 527. An agreement by which a competitor for a public contract agrees to withdraw his bid, and to aid in securing the contract for his rival, is void as against public policy when to be effected by underhand means. Ray v. Mackin, 100 111. 246.

5 Kearney v. Taylor, 15 How. U. S. 519; Gardner v. Morse, 25 Me. 140;.

Bellows v. Russell, 20 N. H. 427; Phip-pen v. Stickney, 3 Met. 387; Bk. of the Metropolis v. Sprague, 5 C. E. Gr. 159; Smull v. Jones, 1 Watts & S. 128; 6 Watts & S. 122; Dick v. Cooper, 24 Penn. St. 217; Breslin v. Brown, 24 Oh. St. 565; Switzer v. Skiles, 3 Gilm. 529; Smith v. Greenlee, 2 Dev. 126; Goode v. Hawkins, 2 Dev. Eq. 393; and cases cited in Wald's Pollock, 310.

6 Andrews, J., Marie v. Garrison, 83 N. Y. 28, citing Wicker v. Hoppock, 6 Wall. 94; Phippen v. Stickney, 3 Met. 834; Marsh v. Russell, 66 N. Y. 288.

Sec 445

As analogous to the rulings above given refusing to give effect to contracts in restraint of trade may be regarded the much contested English and American decisions refusing to declare invalid contracts for trade made illicit by foreign revenue laws.2 " Smuggling," says Goldwin Smith,3 " is the irregular protest of nature against an artificial line;", and to work into all trading contracts the revenue laws of all states from whose dominion the goods contracted for should proceed, would expose such contracts to a distressing uncertainty, and greatly limit the freedom of international trade, as well as sanction what may be great wrongs. Hence, we have numerous rulings in England and the United States, that contracts will not be declared void simply because they conflict with a foreign revenue law.4 It is true that high authorities unite in condemning this conclusion;5 but it is nevertheless now regarded as settled law.6

Foreign revenue laws will not be enforced.

1 Jones v. North, L. R. 19 Eq. 426; Kearney v. Taylor, 15 How. 494; Huntingdon v. Bardwell, 46 N. H. 492; Smull v. Jones, 1 Watts & S. 128; 6 W. & S. 122; Breslin v Brown, 24 Oh. St. 565; see Bradley v. Coolbaugh, 91 Ill. 148, and other cases cited in last section and in Wald's Pollock, 310. That an agreement to pay off other proposers for contracts is void, see Wald v. Lancaster, 56 Me. 453; Stevens v. Perrier, 12 Kan. 297.

2 Wh. Con. of L. sec 484.

3 Cotem. Rev. Sept. 1881. Swift, in a letter to Motte, the London printer, speaking of the English statutes restricting the woollen trade, said: "I am so incensed against the oppressions from England, and have so little regard to the laws they make, that I do, as a clergyman, encourage the merchants (of Ireland) both to export wool and woollen manufactures to any country in Europe, or anywhere else, as I would hide my purse from a highwayman if he came to rob me on the road, although England has made a law to the contrary.".

4 Briggs v. Lawrence, 3 T. R. 454; Clugas v. Penaluna, 4 T. R. 466; Planche v. Fletcher, Doug. 251; Light-foot v. Tenant, 1 B. & P. 551; Sortwell v. Hughes, 1 Curtis, 244; Harris v. Runnells, 12 How. U. S. 79; Smith v. Godfrey, 28 N. H. 379; Ludlow v. Van Rensselaer, 1 Johns. 94; Merchants' Bank v. Spalding, 5 Selden, 53; Kohn v. Schooner Renaisance, 5 La. An. 25; Ivey v. Lalland, 42 Miss. 444; Armen-draz v. Serna, 40 Tex. 291; see Hill v. Spear, 50 N. H. 273.

6 See citations in Wh. on Con. of L. sec 484; Pollock, 3d ed. 299; Story, Conf. of Laws, sec 257; Story, Cont. sec 720.

6 In Sharp v. Taylor, 2 Phill. 801, there were intimations that English courts would not regard foreign regis-.