116 OCTOBI?R Tl?l? IFS07. A?mm?t ?or Apl? ?0? U. ?. low and which, tl?t being the ease? as reduced, ?__?,?s_? a bur- den upon other trsl?. The contract is unlawful because it gives an undue prefer- e?ce to one article of treat (the product) over another article of traffac (live stock), both sxticles beiag in active competition Mr. Cordzn/o A. ?%verance, with ?hom Mr. ? B. Kd- lo? ?1 Mr. Rob? E. O? were on ? bfi?, for sp?, ? G?t W? ?wsy ?y: ?dln? of f?t ?y ? ?c?t ? ?o?d ? ?p? on ap? ? ?tn? ? ? o?n ?m. H? v. ?, ? U.S. ?1; ? v. Gong, 1? U.S. 2?; ? v. ? F?, 1? U. 8. 119; ?t? v. Ha?, 1? U.S. 14; W? v. K?, 1? U.S. ?7; Crawled v. N?, 1? U.S. 5?; E? v. ?, 141 U.S. 1?. ? mn?t ?tw?n ?ndent ? G?t W? ?way ?m?y ?d v?o? ?m w? ?o?r e? i? fi? W ?m? for b?n?. Co?i? v. G?d, 1? U. S. 79; H? v. Un? ?, 171 U.S. ?; D?re, ?- ?n? & W? Ry. Co. v. K?, 147 F?. ?p. 51; 1?- ? C?m. C?m. v. B. & O. Ry. Co., ? F?. ?p. 37; ? v. C?i? T? Co., 125 F?. ?p. ?. ?e m? on ?v?k pr?uc? brou?t s?ut by the ?o G? W?m ?nt?t &d not ?volve ? ?due p?fe?n? or ?j?t &?fi?fion ?t?n ?e m?ing of the ?m? ?w. I?s? C?m. C?m. v. B. & O. Ry. Co., 1? U. 8. 276; E? T?n., V. & G. R?. Co. v. I?s? C?m. C?m., 181 U.S. 1; T? & P? Ry. Co. v. I?s? C?m. C?m., 162 U.S. 197; I?s? C?m. C?m. v. A? M? Ry. Co., 1? U.S. 1?; ? & N?h? Ry. Co. v. ?, 175 U.S. ?; I? C?m. C?m. v. ? & N?h? Ry. Co., 1? U. 8. ?3; D., L. & W. ?. Co. v. K?, 147 F?. ?p. 51'; l?s? C?m. C?m. v.B. & O. Ry. Co., ? F?/ ?p. 37; P? v. ? C?, F?. ?p. ?1;I? C?m. C?m. v. W? & A?
�
