utes, now § 237 of the Judicial Code. Nutt v. Knut, 200 U. S. 12; St. Louis & Iron Mountain Ry. v. Taylor, 210 U. S. 281; St. Louis & Iron Mountain Ry. v. McWhirter, 229 U. S. 265. The motion to dismiss for want of jurisdiction must therefore be overruled.

This court, in the case of Bobbs-Merrill Co. v. Straus, supra, held that the copyright act did not grant the right to fix a limitation upon prices of books at subsequent sales to purchasers from retailers by notice of price limitation inscribed upon the book, and, construing the copyright act, held that in conferring the right to vend a book it did not intend to confer upon the holder of the copyright any further right after he had exercised the right to vend secured to him by the act.

In the case of Standard Sanitary Mfg. Co. v. United States, 226 U. S. 20, this court had under consideration the effect of the patent statute upon agreements found to be unlawful under the Sherman Law, and the agreements condemned were held not to be protected as within the patent monopoly conferred by the statute. Replying to the contention as to the protection which the patent law gave to enter into such agreements, this court said (p. 49):

"Rights conferred by patents are indeed very definite and extensive, but they do not give any more than other rights an universal license against positive prohibitions. The Sherman law is a limitation of rights-rights which may be pushed to evil consequences and therefore restrained."

So, in the present case, it cannot be successfully contended that the monopoly of a copyright is in this respect any more extensive than that secured under the patent law. No more than the patent statute was the copyright act intended to authorize agreements in unlawful restraint of trade and tending to monopoly, in violation of the specific terms of the Sherman Law, which is broadly de

signed to reach all combinations in unlawful restraint of trade and tending because of the agreements or combinations entered into to build up and perpetuate monopolies.

From the finding of facts upon which the court certified the question decided to the Court of Appeals, after the attempted reformation in view of the first decision of that court it appears that the Publishers' Association was composed of probably seventy-five per cent. of the publishers of copyrighted and uncopyrighted books in the United States and that the Booksellers' Association included majority of the booksellers throughout the United States; that the Associations adopted resolutions and made agreements obligating their members to sell copyrighted books only to those who would maintain the retail price on net copyrighted books, and, to that end, that the Associations combined and coöperated with the effect that competition in copyrighted books at retail was almost completely destroyed. The findings further show that the Associations employed various methods of ascertaining whether prices of net copyrighted books were cut and whether there was competition in the sale thereof at retail, and issued cut-off lists, so-called, directing the discontinuance of the sale of copyrighted books to offenders, and that the plaintiffs in error, who had failed to maintain net prices upon copyrighted books, had been put upon the cut-off lists and were unable to secure a supply of such books in the ordinary course of business. It further appears that in some instances dealers who had supplied the plaintiffs in error were wholly ruined and driven out of business; that the Booksellers' Association widely circulated the names of such dealers and warned others to avoid their fate, and that various circulars were issued to the trade at large by both Associations warning all persons against dealing with the plaintiffs in error or other socalled price-cutters; that after the reformation of the resolutions and agreements in 1904 the Associations and

their members continued the same methods as to ascertaining the supply of copyrighted books of the plaintiffs in error, as to cut-off lists and circulars to the trade, and that, although in 1907 the resolution of the Publishers' Association was modified so that the "agreement" became a "recommendation," the cut-off lists were still issued, with plaintiff's name thereon and that the dealers still refused to supply plaintiffs in error with books of any kind. And it also appears from the finding of facts that the members of the Associations resided in and carried on the business of selling books in many different States and purchased books from persons in many States other than the one in which they resided and did business; and that the rules, regulations and agreements of the Associations were enforced against all publishers and dealers in books throughout the United States, whether they were members of either Association or not and whether they purchased books in one State for transportation and delivery in another or for delivery in the State where purchased.

We agree with the Court of Appeals in its characterization of the agreement involved in this case, about which there seems to have been no difference of opinion, except as to the supposed protection of the copyright act. It manifestly went beyond any fair and legal agreement to protect prices and trade as among the parties thereto and prevented, as the Court of Appeals said, when dealing with uncopyrighted books, the sale of books of any kind, at any price, to those who were condemned by the terms of the agreement and with whom dealings were practically prohibited. We conclude, therefore, that the Court of Appeals erred in holding that the agreement was justified by the copyright act, and was not within the denunciation of the Sherman Act, and in denying, for that reason alone, the right of the plaintiffs in error to recover under the state act as to copyrighted books.

This view of the case renders it unnecessary to decide whether an original action can be maintained in the state courts seeking an injunction and to recover damages under the Sherman Law.

As the Federal question, made in the manner which we have stated, was in our view wrongly decided and such decision was the basis of the judgment in the state court, the judgment of that court must be reversed. Murdock v. City of Memphis, 20 Wall. 590, 634.

Judgment reversed and case remanded to the state court whence it came for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.

UNITED STATES FIDELITY AND GUARANTY COMPANY v. UNITED STATES FOR THE BENEFIT OF BARTLETT.

ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT.

No. 50. Argued November 6, 7, 1913.-Decided December 1, 1913.

A bond given pursuant to the act of August 13, 1894, c. 280, 28 Stat. 278, for a contract for building a stone breakwater, under the terms of this contract, covers claims for labor on work at the quarry and for hauling and delivering the stone.

Under the circumstances of this case held that the claims of laborers for wages had been properly assigned to the claimant and clothed him with legal right to maintain an action upon the bond given under the act of August 13, 1894.

A claim against the surety on the bond of a government contractor will not be rejected as fraudulently excessive where it is shown that claimant's books have been destroyed but he offers to allow credits properly shown on the contractor's books and the records do not

Statement of the Case.

231 U. S.

disclose an attempt to recover more than the amount actually due.

A claimant will not be charged with laches when the record does not disclose any delay which affected the relations of the parties or such that should relieve a surety from liability on the contractor's bond.

189 Fed. Rep. 339, affirmed.

THE United States, for the benefit of Frank P. Bartlett, brought suit in the Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern District of New York against the plaintiff in error as surety upon a bond given pursuant to the provisions of an act of Congress (August 13, 1894, c. 280, 28 Stat. 278) to the effect that any person or persons contracting with the Government for the prosecution of public work should be required to furnish a bond conditioned that the contractor or contractors would "promptly make payments to all persons supplying him or them labor and materials in the prosecution of the work provided for in such contract." Upon trial a verdict was rendered in his favor, and judgment entered accordingly. The Circuit Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the judgment (189 Fed. Rep. 339), and this writ of error is brought to review its judgment.

The record shows: The United States Government contracted with one Donovan on February 18, 1903, for the construction of a breakwater off Point Judith, Rhode Island, it being provided in the contract that he should be "responsible for and pay all liabilities incurred in the prosecution of the work for labor and material." Donovan executed a bond containing the obligation required by the act, with the plaintiff in error as surety. Donovan was associated with Hughes Brothers & Bangs and it was agreed that they should perform the contract and that he would turn over the Government's estimates to them, this fact being known to the plaintiff in error.

An arrangement was made between Hughes Brothers &