This action comes before me on a motion to dismiss the amended complaint of certain sugar beet growers, who arc seeking treble damages under the Anti-Trust Act, Secs. 1 to 7, 15 note, Title 15 U.S.C.A., from the defendant sugar refiner, alleging a conspiracy, the effect of which prevented the sale of sugar beets on a free and open competitive market. The motion to dismiss is based on the ground that the raising of sugar beets has no direct effect upon interstate commerce and therefore does not come within the purview of the Anti-Trust Act.

The amended complaint alleges in effect that the plaintiffs are growers of sugar beets north of the 36th parallel in California and the only outlets for their products are three certain sugar refineries located in the same area within the State of California; that the sugar refineries in said area entered into a conspiracy in violation of Section 1, Title 15 U.S.C.A., whereby each refiner agreed to pay the growers the same price for sugar beets and entered into identical contracts with all the growers of said area. The identical contracts among other things provided:

It is further alleged that prior to the said conspiracy the contracts of the defendant provided that the price paid for sugar beets would be based upon the net returns of the defendant, instead of the average net returns of all the sugar refineries in said area; that during the crop years complained of the defendant received *266 .265 cents per pound more for its raw sugar than the other refineries and as a result of said conspiracy the plaintiffs have received less for their sugar beets than they would have received except for said conspiracy.

Plaintiffs further complain that they failed to receive the fair market value for said sugar beets in accordance with the fair market price fixed by the Secretary of Agriculture; that the difference actually received by them and the price fixed by the Secretary of Agriculture represents the damages suffered by them and under the provisions of the Anti-Trust Act said damages should be trebled.

From the complaint it appears that the net result of the conspiracy is that all beet growers in said area received the same price for their sugar beets and, while the plaintiffs may have suffered a detriment, growers delivering their beets to other sugar refineries received an advantage.

The complaint coupled with the contracts attached thereto as exhibits clearly establish that the sugar refineries were working in concert in the purchase of sugar beets from the grower plaintiffs. This brings us to the main question of law raised by the motion to dismiss.

The defendant contends that the raising of the beets, the sale to the refineries for the purpose of processing the same into sugar is an intrastate matter and beyond the reach of the Anti-Trust Act. With this contention I agree.

In the case of Coe v. Town of Errol, 116 U.S. 517 at page 526, 6 S.Ct. 475, 477 , 29 L.Ed. 715 , the court stated:

To the same effect see Crescent Cotton Oil Co. v. State of Mississippi, 257 U.S. 129 , 42 S.Ct. 42 , 66 L.Ed. 166 .

The case closest in point is Dothan Oil Mill Co. v. Espy, 220 Ala. 605 , 127 So. 178, 179, 182 , wherein the court had before it the identical question now before this court. The court covered the question in the following language:

In Utah-Idaho Sugar Co. v. Federal Trade Commission, 8 Cir., 22 F.2d 122, 125 , the court had before it for consideration the very subject matter involved in this litigation, namely, sugar and sugar beets. The court therein stated:

In the case of Parker, Director of Agriculture, et al. v. Brown, 317 U.S. 341, 361 , 63 S.Ct. 307, 318 , 87 L.Ed. 315 , arising in our own district, we find some pertinent language wherein the court stated:

It appears clear that the decisions of our courts have consistently held throughout the life of the Anti-Trust Act that products of the farm which are subsequently manufactured or processed into articles of commerce are beyond the reach of said Act.

I am further of the opinion that the plaintiffs have precluded a recovery on the ground that they are in effect co-conspirators. When they entered into the contracts with the refiners, they joined the conspiracy and furthered the object of the same. The contracts were entered into before the planting of the seed and when they agreed and became a party to the fixing of the prices to be received by the growers, they became a party to the conspiracy. Under such circumstances they are precluded from any recovery. 19 R.C. L. p. 28; Connolly et al. v. Union Sewer Pipe Co., 184 U.S. 540 , 22 S.Ct. 431 , 46 L.Ed. 679 ; Harriman et al. v. Northern Securities Co., 197 U.S. 244 , 25 S.Ct. 493 , 49 L.Ed. 739 ; Bishop v. American Preservers Co. et al., C.C.Ill., 105 F. 845 ; Bluefields S. S. Co., Ltd., v. United Fruit Co., 3 Cir., 243 F. 1 ; Maltz v. Sax et al., 7 Cir., 134 F.2d 2 ; Northwestern Oil Co. *268 v. Socony Vacuum Oil Co., Inc., et al., 7 Cir., 138 F.2d 967 .

Defendant is entitled to judgment of dismissal and is directed to submit to me proposed judgment in accordance with this opinion.