Assistant professor in the Harvard Law School, Bruce Wyman (b. 15 June 1875; d. 21 June 1926) provided aspiring future businessmen an overview of commercial and labor law. Students hoping to go on to study law were explicitly not encouraged to take this course. His exam questions rank among the longest I have encountered thus far in my archival fishing expeditions. He apparently expected as much in return (he wrote in his suggestions for the mid-year examination “Thirty-six pages would be a desirable maximum as to length.”)
In the 1905-06 economics course outline folder there is an incomplete collection of the homework paper assignments, 10 of (13?). Perhaps they were due every second week or so over the semester. The format of the questions matches that found in the exams. Everything found for this year was transcribed for this post.
__________________________
From earlier years
1901-02. Autobiographical note, enrollment, course description, syllabus, exams.
1902-03. Obituary, enrollment, course description, exams.
1903-04. Enrollment and exams.
1904-05. Enrollment, course description, exams.
__________________________
Course Enrollment
1905-06
Economics 21. Asst. Professor Wyman. — Principles of Law governing Industrial Relations and Commercial Law.
Total 150: 6 Graduates, 68 Seniors, 46 Juniors, 19 Sophomores, 11 Others.
Source: Harvard University. Report of the President of Harvard College, 1904-1905, p. 73.
__________________________
ECONOMICS 21
Paper Assignments
[incomplete]
Paper No. 1
- A is a workman employed in the works of B. B carries an indemnity policy covering accidents written by C. A gets his hand crushed in one of the machines, which is improperly guarded. C attempts to make a settlement with A at $500, which A refuses; thereupon C threatens to get A discharged by B, but A still refuses to compromise. Next, C goes to B and demands that A be discharged. B is at first unwilling, but when C threatens to take advantage of the clause in the policy permitting cancellation of the policy upon five days’ notice, B reluctantly undertakes to discharge A at the end of the week for which he is employed, protesting that A is a good workman and he had intended to give him regular employment. After A is thus discharged he brings suit against C for loss of employment. What decision? Give reasons with care.
- A is a manufacturer of soap who is dealing with a jobber named B, among others. C, another manufacturer of soap, goes to B and first offers him a rebate of 10% if B will not handle the soap of A any longer, but will deal with C exclusively, and then threatens B that unless he will do this he will not sell him any soap at all. B then accedes with much protestation. A, thus cut off by B, brings suit against C for loss of business. What decision? Give reasons with care.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Paper No. 2
- A & Co., proprietors of a department store, advertise “the B Co. piano, regular price $500, our price $444.” A & Co. have one such piano in stock, but if they should have more orders they would try to get more if they could. The B Co. are much injured in their business by this; as they only allow their agents 10%, retailers cease handling their piano in the district where A & Co. sell. After A & Co. sell the piano they have had in stock they continue to run the advertisement, although the B Co. of course refuse to sell them any more pianos. Can the B Co. succeed in bringing any suits against A & Co.? Cite any cases you think in point. Give your reasons carefully.
- X & Co. begin the manufacture of underwear, woven with an open mesh, which they advertise as “Cellular Underclothing.” A few months later Z & Co. begin the manufacture of a similar article which they advertise as “Cellular Underclothing, a better article than that of any other manufacturer.” Can X & Co. sue Z & Co. for anything? Cite any authorities that you think in point. Give your reasons carefully.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Paper No. 3
- (a) Give briefly the facts in Pontefact v. Isenberger. (b) Give shortly the rule of law in Reddaway v. Banham.
- (a) A manufacturer of tomato catsup puts his product on the market in a bottle with a tapering neck wrapped in a cylindrical cardboard carton covered with manila paper upon which is printed in large black letters “X & Co. — Tomato Catsup,” with a picture of the bottle represented as full of red catsup. Z & Co. who begin the manufacture of tomato catsup some years later put their product upon the market in almost exactly the same way, — the bottle tapering, the carton cylindrical, the wrapper manila paper, the printing black, “Z & Co. — Tomato Catsup,” with a picture of the bottle filled with red catsup. Can X & Co. require Z & Co. to make some changes? Cite cases in point. (b) When the patent ran out on the “Singer Sewing Machine” which had been made by S & Co., J & Co. began the manufacture of a machine exactly similar which they put upon the market marked “Singer Sewing Machine.” Can S & Co. prevent J & Co. from doing this in this way? Cite cases in point.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Paper No. 4
- (a) Give briefly the facts in Dudley v. Briggs. (b) Tell shortly what was decided in Pitt v. Donovan.
- (a) A & Co., manufacturers of farm implements, circulated the following advertisement in the country newspapers: “We believe that we have the fundamental patents upon harvesters; and, noticing that B & Co. are putting on the market a harvester which seems plainly an infringement of our patents, we hereby give notice that we shall begin legal proceedings against buyers who use this machine, as well as against B & Co.” B & Co. bring a bill for an injunction against A & Co., stating the above facts. What decision? Cite cases in point. (b) X & Co., manufacturers of artificial fertilizer, circulate a statement that their product has 25% more nitrates than that of Z & Co. Z & Co. bring suit, offering to prove that these figures are fabricated by X & Co. What result? Cite cases in point.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Paper No. 6
- Is the following a correct statement of the law: “What our law forbids is total suppression of competition, partial restriction of competition is unobjectionable; thus if there are three grocers in a town and one pays each of the others money to quit business the agreements are not valid, but if the first pays the second money to quit business the law does not object, since competition remains between the first and third.” In your answer cite various cases in the prescribed reading for the week in support of your opinion.
- The following cases deal with the same problem: Jelliet v. Broade, Hayward v. Young, Harvey v. Cooke, and Nordenfelt v. Maxim-Nordenfelt Co. What is the principle of law involved in all of them? In your answer show familiarity with each case, both with the chief facts found and with the rule of law laid down.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Paper No. 7
- State the facts in the following cases: (a) Wickens v. Evans, (b) Milwaukee Mason & Builder’s Association v. Niezerowski. Say whether you agree with the decisions in these cases. In your answers support your reasoning with citation of other cases in the prescribed reading.
- Here are the principal facts about two cases recently decided. (a) In one an agreement was proved between a manufacturer of skirt binding and the proprietor of a woman’s periodical by which the manufacturer agreed to take a page of advertising for a year at $1000, while the proprietor agreed to reject the advertisements of other manufacturers of skirt binding; the court held that the proprietor was liable for breaking this agreement by taking another advertisement of skirt binding. (b) In the second case three manufacturers of shoes agreed together not to send more than five travelling salesmen into any one state; this agreement the court held invalid. Do you think these cases to be rightly decided? In your answers as to each case cite the cases in the prescribed reading that you consider most in point.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Paper No. 8
- Compare (a) Scottish Coöperative Society v. Glasgow Flesher’s Association with (b) Plant v. Woods. In your discussion cite other cases by way of illustration.
- If these two cases should be brought to Court how should they be decided: (a) A combination of oil refiners, A, B, C, D, and E, agree to lower prices 33 1/3% for a year in order to drive X, a dangerous competitor, out of business; their intention is to raise prices after X is disposed of. Can X sue B for the damages caused him by this campaign? (b) Employes of the A railroad refuse to handle freight cars forwarded from the B railroad where a strike is in progress; this policy is adopted because the employes of both railroads are affiliated with the same union, which has voted to instruct the employes of the B Co. to strike and those of the A Co. to support them as they are doing. What remedy has the A Co.? In your answer refer to some cases.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Paper No. 11
- (a) State the factors usually enumerated in the definition of a corporation. (b) Say how many of these are essential to the conception of a corporation.
- (a) A acquires all of the capital stock in the X corporation. He then makes a mortgage of the property of the X corporation to the L bank to secure a loan of $5,000 to him. Later he gives B and C one share each in the corporation, and calls a stockholders’ meeting which votes to mortgage the property of the corporation to the M bank to secure a loan of $5,000 to the corporation; the vote authorizes A to execute the mortgage, which he does. The property proves worth about $8,000 when the X corporation fails. How shall it be divided between the L bank and the M bank, neither of which knew of the other’s mortgage? (b) Ships which have English owners only can be registered as English ships. A certain corporation organized in England is shown to have solely French stockholders; may ships owned by it be admitted to English registry?
* * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Paper No. 12
- (a) Give in one sentence the point of law decided in Ellis v. Marshall. (b) Also give in one sentence the point of law decided in Trustees of Free Schools v. Flint.
- (a) Give the facts in Broderip v. Salomon fully. (b). Give accurately the decision of the Divisional Court upon the case, written by Vaughan-Williams, J., together with his reasons. (c) Give accurately the decision of the Court of Appeal, written by Lindley, L. J., together with his reasons. (d) Give accurately the decision of the House of Lords, written by Lord Halsbury, together with his reasons.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Paper No. 13
- (a) What does Coit v. Gold Amalgamating Co. decide about the validity of payment of stock subscriptions with property instead of cash? (b) What does Bundy v. Ophir Iron Co. decide about the effect of mortgages upon corporate property which are executed by all of the shareholders in their own names?
- (a) A partnership is composed of A, B, and C, but is known as “A & B.” Land is conveyed to “A & B,” paid for with partnership funds; goods are bought by C for the partnership which are delivered to it, but for which he advances the money himself. Later A, B, and C and “A & B” all become bankrupt A, B, and C each own a house and furniture. They individually each owe various people, and the firm owes various people. How shall these estates he wound up? (b) In a certain corporation A, B, and C each own one-third of the shares. It owns a grain elevator; this A wants the corporation to insure, but this B and C refuse to agree shall be done. Then A insures the elevator in his own name, paying the premiums himself. Later it burns; it was worth $21,000; how much will A recover?
Source: Harvard University Archives. Syllabi, course outlines and reading lists in Economics, 1895-2003, Box 1, Folder “Economics, 1905-1906”.
__________________________
ECONOMICS 21
Mid-year Examination, 1905-06
Please observe the following suggestions: Divide your time so as to reply to all questions. Make your answers definite; if you to treat the principal questions as units for discussing them, indicate plainly your decision upon each subdivision. Give your reasons for your answers in every case, but state them as briefly as possible, citing cases whenever you remember them. Thirty-six pages would be a desirable maximum as to length.
- Do the following go beyond fair competition:
- X & Co. advertise that “The Natural brand of preserves made by us contains no artificial preservatives, whereas the Perfect brand, manufactured by A & Co., contains (as is shown by the analysis of that eminent chemist, Professor L., which is upon file at our office) 1% of Benzoate Soda.” A & Co. offer to prove that no such analysis was ever made. Can A & Co. sue X & Co.?
- Suppose that in that same suit X & Co. offer to prove by three experts that A & Co’s preserves really do contain more than 1% of Benzoate Soda, should the evidence be admitted?
- This advertisement was also published by X & Co.: “The L hotel tried the Perfect brand of preserved fruits for one week — then the manager gave orders to the steward never to buy any more, and to stop serving those that they had bought.” The statement was true; but the reason for the change was because the employees of the hotel, who belonged to a union, refused to serve the Perfect brand as A & Co. had locked out the union men employed at their factory. Can A & Co. sue X & Co.?
- Another advertisement of X & Co. was: “Think what canned fruits were like before we entered the market — the Perfect (?) brand used to be considered the best! Today everyone realizes the superiority of the processes used in making our Natural brand over all the old fashioned methods used by others.” A & Co. sue X & Co., offering to prove that the reputation of their goods is better than that of X & Co. What result?
- Are the following unfair competition:
- X has worked for 10 years for A, the leading florist of Boston. He starts out in business for himself, three doors below, stating on the sign: “X, late with A,” with a card in the window stating: “Customers of A will receive prompt attention.” Can A get any injunction against X?
- A has extensively advertised and sold the L brand whiskey, which is put up in a peculiar, cubical shaped bottle, with a very long neck, and is recognized by the shape of the bottle. X offers for sale a whiskey in exactly the same kind of bottle, but with a different label.
- After the Singer patents, under which the Singer Mfg. Co. was manufacturing, had run out, the June Mfg. Co. began the manufacture of a machine according to the Singer designs, which they labelled in large letters; “Singer Machine.” Can the Singer Mfg. Co. get any injunction?
- A man named Baker begins the manufacture of chocolate in Massachusetts in 1880, which he calls Baker’s chocolate. A man in California, in 1885, named Baker, begins the manufacture of chocolate which he calls Baker’s chocolate. Both begin selling in Illinois for the first time in 1890. Which can stop the other?
- In a strike at a paper mill, called to get recognition of the union by getting the non-union men discharged, the union of the employees adopt the following tactics. How many of these will be stopped by an injunction asked for by the employers:
- Posting two pickets at the mill gates with instructions to them to use no violence.
- Refusing to patronize dealers who advertise in newspapers which buy their paper from this mill.
- Posting upon bill boards an appeal to workingmen urging “all honest laborers not to apply for employment at the mill while the strike is in progress.”
- Paying non-union men who have taken employment at this mill $25 each to quit work at the end of the week for which they are employed.
- An association of refiners of kerosene oil adopt the following policies. How many of these will give a rival refiner who is injured an action for damages:
- Refusing to sell any oil to retailers who deal at all with refiners outside the association.
- Reducing prices 25% in districts where rival refiners are selling.
- Giving 33 1/3% discount to those retailers who will agree to deal with members of the association exclusively.
- Fining any member of the association who sells to any retailer who deals with any outside refiner.
- Can A sue X in the following cases, or is the course of dealings described regarded as permissible:
- A makes a contract with a retail stove dealer in which it is agreed that all stoves which the retailer shall need during the year shall be bought of X at certain specified prices. X then comes to this retailer and says: “I will cut every price you have from A in that contract 33 1/3% if you will buy of me instead of from A.” The retailer thereupon repudiates his contract with A and enters into one with X.
- A manufacturer of saleratus enters into a contract one with jobbers, in he promises those jobbers a special discount who agree not to sell other cheaper grades. A, a manufacturer of a cheaper grade, finds himself almost forced out of the market of a cheaper grade finds himself almost forced out of the market by this.
- L, a baker, sells his shop to A, agreeing with him not to engage, within five miles, for five years, in any branch of the provision business, in any capacity. X, a rival baker, takes a lease of the shop next door, and opens branch there, inducing L to act as manager of the shop.
- X, a salesman of A, during his last trip, tells customers that he is going to set up for himself after Jan. 1, 1906, and that he will hope to have their patronage then.
- Are the following agreements enforceable:
- An agreement signed by various railroads not to give credit for freight to shippers who owe any of them for freight.
- An agreement between shoe manufacturers not to employ more than three drummers in any one state.
- An agreement between one automobile manufacturer and a magazine proprietor that $2,500 should be paid for one page of advertising in the April number, and that no other automobile advertisements should be taken for March, April, or May.
- An agreement between three manufacturers of iron pipe that each would give to each of the others 5% of all orders received by them.
- Can A sue the X corporation, which is organized to manufacture shoe machinery, in the following cases:
- A has conveyed to the X Co. a tract of land upon which it is building a model town for its employees, but for which it has not paid X.
- A has agreed to transfer to the X Co. a majority of the shares in the B Co., a rival shoe machinery company, for which block of shares the A Co. has agreed to pay $125 per share.
- Suppose A is a shareholder in the X Co., and a dividend of 20%, payable June 1, was declared May 1 by the directors, but at a later meeting, on May 15, they had reconsidered that vote and voted to pay no dividend at all, although the corporation books showed 50% profit for the last five years.
- Suppose that the board of directors of the X Co., who hold a majority of the shares of stock, buy of a syndicate of which they are the members a tract of land for an extension of the factory, the plot costing them $100,000, being sold to the X Co. for $250,000. What can A, a minority stockholder, do?
- X and Y form a partnership to manufacture cotton cloth. Can A sue X and Y in the following cases:
- A comes to X and Y offering them 5,000 bales of cotton at 12 cents per lb. X says to A: “We do not need that cotton,” but Y says to A: “Yes, we do; and we will take all of it from you at that price.” So Y and A enter into a written contract for the cotton, which Y signs in the firm name,” X all the time protesting.
- Suppose A had found Y alone at the firm’s office and Y had entered into a similar contract for the 5,000 bales of cotton on behalf of X and Y, which X had protested against when he returned.
- Suppose I had, without authority of X, signed a note in the name of the firm to pay his butcher’s bill, and the butcher had discounted the note with A, a banker.
- Suppose Y, with consent of X, had signed a contract agreeing to subscribe $1,000 to a cotton manufacturer’s exposition.
- In the insolvency of the A corporation, the following facts appearing, what will each claimant noted in the statement of facts get out of the winding up, taking every fact stated below into account: The B corporation, having no other assets than a plant worth then about $200,000, but subject to a bonded indebtedness of $100,000 upon its assets, the bonds being held by V, by a unanimous vote sells all its rights in the plant which are subject to the outstanding bond issue to the A Co. for $100,000, payment to the B Co. being made by $50,000 in cash and a $50,000 note of the A Co., which has not yet been paid. One W acquires later all the stock in the B Co. at 75 from the different shareholders who had originally paid 100 for their shares. It further was shown that X, who owned another plant worth about $105,000, sold it to the A Co. for $100,000, getting in return $5,000 cash and $100,000 of the bonds of the A Co., which bonds were part of an issue of $200,000 constituting a first lien upon all the assets of the A Co. of every sort, the other $100,000 of these bonds having been sold by the A Co. to Y at a discount of 15%. It also appeared that the capital stock of the A Co. was $200,000, the shares of which were issued to Z at 50% discount. When, in the insolvency proceedings the two plants are sold, the one bought from the B Co., having much depreciated, sells for $80,000, while the one bought from X, having appreciated, sells for $150,000. In addition to the claims noted above the A Co. is found to owe $50,000 to general creditors.
Give clearly, in figures, the amount that each claimant will get. It is unnecessary in this question to discuss the rules of law involved; simply relate the processes by which you reach the results, stating the rules.
Source: Harvard University Archives. Harvard University. Mid-year Examinations, 1852-1943. Box 7, Bound Volume: Examination Papers, Mid-Years 1905-06.
__________________________
ECONOMICS 21
Year-end Examination, 1904-05
Give your answers plainly and definitely; and state your reasons carefully and briefly.
- The X Beef Corporation was organized in New Jersey with a capital stock of $200,000,000. With these shares or their proceeds it bought the packing plants at L, M, N, O, and P, getting the sellers to agree not to engage in the beef packing business for twenty years within the United States; A was one of these sellers. The corporation has acquired and is endeavoring to continue a monopoly in restraint of trade. One method used by it in this respect is to refuse to sell its products to dealers who handle the goods of its rivals at the same price as it will sell to those dealers who will agree to deal with it exclusively; B was a dealer who refused to accede to these terms. The corporation sold beef to C on credit and bought cattle from D on credit.
Can the X corporation sue A or C for breaking their contracts; and can B or C sue the X corporation for damages? - In 1894 an individual and a corporation enter into a partnership agreement, stipulated to continue for five years. In 1897 large net profits have been realized and are in the hands of the corporation. It is reasonably certain that further profits will accrue if the partnership is continued to the end of the stipulated term. But the corporation, in 1897, refuses to continue in partnership, or to recognize the individual partner’s right to share in the profits then on hand.
What, if any, remedies has the individual against the corporation? - The X, Y, and Z corporations, engaged in the manufacture of cotton goods and all in a flourishing condition, wished to combine their businesses. The directors and a majority of the stockholders of each corporation voted to transfer all the assets of their respective corporations to the D corporation, recently organized, and to take the stock of the D corporation in payment. A, B, and C, stockholders in these companies, obtained a temporary injunction against such transfer. Thereupon all the stockholders of the X corporation (except A, B, and C) transferred their stock to L, as trustee, with power for five years to vote the stock and to make such transfers as he should think wise for the purpose of qualifying directors. All the stockholders of the Y and Z corporations (except A, B, and C) transferred their stock to M and N respectively on like trusts. L, M, and N entered into an agreement always to elect the same persons directors of all the corporations during the continuance of the voting trusts, and they thereafter voted for certain persons for directors in pursuance of this agreement. A, B, and C voted for different persons for directors, no person being voted for as a director in more than one corporation.
May the persons so voted for oust the directors voted for by L, M, and N? Should the injunction obtained by A, B, and C be made permanent? - A railroad company is constructed through a coal region. At first it receives coal from all shippers into the cars which it leaves upon its own sidings. Later the larger operators at considerable expense construct spurs to their mines and erect conveyors to load the cars; to such operators the railroad makes a reduction in rates over those who load at stations. Later still the railroad gives notice that it will no longer accept coal in bulk from any shipper who does not maintain his own spurs and conveyors.
Has the small operator who has no such equipment any complaint against the earlier discrimination or against the later refusal to serve? - An electric light company in the city of X is constructed by the issue of $1,000,000 of stock issued to a contractor in part payment for the construction of its plant and by the floating of $1,000,000 20 year 5% bonds at 90. The contractor made 10% net on the whole job. At present the company is paying 8% dividends in addition to meeting promptly the interest on its bonds. It makes a practice of charging to operating expenses all repairs and replacements, while outright new construction or extensions it provides for out of a surplus fund collected some years ago. In addition to these charges it sets aside out of current earnings 8 1/3% relying upon an expert’s opinion that practically the whole plant must be renewed in in twelve years, and by vote of its stockholders it pays enough into a sinking fund each year to retire its bond issue at maturity. A to a corporation commission, acting under the authority of enabling legislation, orders the price for electricity reduced to consumers to a figure which the electric company shows by its books will leave them only 2% dividends if their present financial policy is continued.
Should the courts set aside the orders of the commission on this showing? - A railroad company buys coal of various operators along its route which it transports to market and sells there. An independent operator shows that at times of press of business the railroad uses part of its cars in its own coal shipments; to which the railroad company replies that it gives him his proportion of cars. This operator also shows that the railroad will buy coal at $3.00 per ton, transport it to market and sell it at $3.75, while he shipping from the same station has to pay the published rate of $1.25 per ton; to which the railroad company replies by saying that they make themselves a trainload rate of 75 cents per ton which they are willing to give him.
Must he be content with these answers? - A railroad running east from A to C through B advertises a cheap round trip from B to C and return which it states is “only from station B, passengers from stations west of B may not take advantage of this excursion.” X who lives in A buys a ticket to B, intending to do some business with a merchant, Y, in that town. As he is getting off the train at B he is met by the office boy of Y who tells him that Y went to C by an earlier train. X thereupon decides to follow Y to C and get him to return back; he accordingly goes to the ticket office at B and asks for a cheap round trip so that he can go on by the same train which is still waiting in the station. The ticket agent refuses to sell him a ticket. He gets on board the train and offers to pay the conductor regular fare, but the conductor tells him that he cannot ride upon this excursion train without a special ticket, and thereupon ejects him, using necessary force.
What are X’s rights against the railroad? - The rate from A to B on the X railroad, an interstate carrier, was 10 cents per ton; from A to C, 20 miles beyond B, the rate Over the same road was 8 cents per ton. From A to B there were several competing lines of railroad, but they had successfully formed a traffic agreement to keep up rates. From A to C the competing lines were cutting rates, and the 8-cent rate was necessary if the X railroad was to obtain business. At D, a station beyond C, where there was also competition, the X railroad carted goods free for all shippers who would agree to ship all their goods by it.
Have shippers at B or at D any legal complaint?
Source: Harvard University Archives. Harvard University, Examination Papers 1873-1915. Box 8, Bound volume: Examination Papers, 1906-07; Papers Set for Final Examinations in History, Government, Economics,…,Music in Harvard College (June, 1906), pp. 43-46.
Image Source: Harvard Law School ca. 1901 from the Detroit Publishing Company photograph collection (Library of Congress).