How have the courts dealt with a dispute between a manufacturer and a wholesale dealer?

The position of the respective contestants is not far different, it will be seen, from that of the parties to the action of Nat. Protective Ass'n v. Cumming, supra. Each is striving, as against others, to help itself or himself, and the question is here, as in that case, whether defendants, in taking such action as they did to prevent plaintiff from getting the business they wanted, are violating any rule of law. The wholesale dealers had the right to contract to secure such amount of rebate from the manufacturers as would reasonably compensate them for their services in distribution, together with the money invested. It is not claimed that the rate of compensation agreed upon [175 N.Y. 19]was unfair, and, if there could be such complaint, it is difficult to see who could make it, except the manufacturers themselves, and they do not. It was clearly legal for any one of the wholesale dealers to sign the agreement, and to bind himself to sell at such prices as the manufacturer or the article should see fit to name as the selling price. The right to fix the price belonging to the manufacturer, it was proper for the wholesaler to agree to recognize that right, and govern himself accordingly. He had the right to insist that, in consideration of his performing those conditions in accordance with the wishes of the manufacturer, the latter should not give to other dealers the rebate provided for members of the association, unless such dealer should agree to be bound by the same conditions the members of the association took upon themselves; and he had a right to agree that, in order to secure the due carrying out of the agreement according to the spirit thereof, be would furnish to the manufacturer such evidence as he might secure from time to time, tending to show that members of the association were directly or indirectly violating its rules; and that which he could do alone, he and they could do as members of the association, provided, of course, their coming together did not operate against the rights of the general public; but as against other selling agents like themselves, no other public interest being affected, there could be no doubt of their right to agree with each other to do what any of them could do alone, so long as the motive was proper. The members of the association not only had the right to inform the manufacturers about those members within it, and the dealers without it, who were violating the plans agreed upon; but they also had the right to take such legitimate and honorable means as were within reach to ascertain what persons were violating the rules, and to give notice of it to all of the members of the association. But that course operated, says the plaintiff, in effect, to deprive me of the opportunity of buying goods on terms as favorable as the defendant wholesale dealers bought them. True, but it may be answered that you could buy them on the same terms as the [175 N.Y. 20]members of the association, which terms contain conditions governing the sale and the conduct of the members. Instead, you prefer to take the business chances to be found outside of the association; and, before the courts will help you, you must show that the plans of the association, or its conduct under those plans are unlawful as against you.

The position attempted to be taken at this juncture by the plaintiff is that, granting the