their purchase price.) Although this policy was outlawed in certain states (e.g., Texas), in states where it was enforceable, the company enforced it to the extent of the law. In 1922, the government charged Richard Hudnut Inc. with conspiracy to violate the Sherman Antitrust Act as a result of its price-control activities. Richard Hudnut, Inc. and Richard Hudnut Sales Company, a subsidiary, were again charged with unfair trade practices in 1936 under the Robinson-Patman Act. Incidents Several colorful incidents marked Richard Hudnut's life. In 1894, Richard Hudnut filed suit against the department store Carroll, Beadle & Mudge of Rochester, New York for allegedly selling imitation Hudnut perfume as the real thing. In 1901, the U.S. Customs Service sent an officer to his house to inquire about certain imports that Hudnut was receiving at a particularly low cost, as no duty was being paid. The officer was told that Hudnut was not at home. In 1901, patent solicitor Oscar Michel was arrested on $5,000 bail for passing a bogus check to Richard Hudnut. Hudnut had had the solicitor file a patent application for him but when he didn't receive it from the patent office, he demanded his money back from Michel. The check was returned "N.G." (non-negotiable). In 1902, Richard Hudnut was exonerated on smuggling charges alleged to have been conducted by a steamship steward. The steward was arrested for smuggling violet essence and musk into the United States, some of which was traced to Hudnut's pharmacy. On further investigation, the collector entirely cleared Hudnut of any wrongdoing. In March 1903, Richard Hudnut bought a suite of Louis Quinze chairs for $220 at an auction of actress Ada Rehan's personal property. In 1905, upon returning from vacation at his Adirondacks camp, Hudnut discovered that his New York apartment had been burglarized; even his grand piano was gone. In 1909, Hudnut applied for a tax refund on alcohol which had been used in cosmetics which were to be exported. The Collector of Customs granted the request, but demanded precise accounting of the quantities used in manufacturing, including any waste. In 1915, Swift & Company sued Richard Hudnut for trademark infringement. Swift had registered the trademark "Vanity Fair" and challenged Hudnut's right to use the name "Vanity". The court ruled in favor of the plaintiff, in spite of the fact that Hudnut had registered his trademark earlier than Swift. The grounds were that