Page images

206 U. S. 428, 51 L. Ed. 1124, 27 Sup. Ct. 709. Where "rates have been long in effect, and where the advance has been made by concerted action," the justification should be clear. Re Class and Commodity Rates from St. Louis to Texas Common Points, 11 I. C. C. 238, 268, 269, 270. Disappearance of competition given as one reason for holding an advance illegal. Cattle Raisers' Asso. v. Mo., Kan. & Tex. Ry. Co., 11 I. C. C. 296. A rate the result of an agreement is robbed of the presumption of reasonableness which it might otherwise. possess. China and Japan Trading Co. v. Ga. R. Co., 12 I. C. C. 236, 241. But if the rate is reasonable although illegally established, the Commission will so hold. Id. 241. Warren Mfg. Co. v. So. Ry. Co., 12 I. C. C. 381. Evidence of a violation of the Anti-Trust Act pertinent, and such evidence will be given due weight though it is not conclusive. Enterprise Mfg. Co. v. Ga. R. Co., 12 I. C. C. 451, 456; Board of Bristol, Tenn., v. Virginia & S. Ry. Co., 15 I. C. C. 453, 454. Equity will not aid a plaintiff to effect a combination in restraint of trade. Am. Biscuit & Mfg. Co. v. Klotz, 44 Fed. 721, 1 Fed. Anti-Trust Dec. 2. A combination between coal dealers in different states to control prices prohibited. United States v. Jellico Mountain Coal & Coke Co., 46 Fed. 432, 12 L. R. A. 753, 1 Fed. Anti-Trust Dec. 9. Control of railroads by stock ownership so as to prevent competition within the spirit, if not letter of law. Clarke v. Cent. R. Banking Co., 50 Fed. 338, 1 Fed. Anti-Trust Dec. 17. An owner of a patentable invention, though a party to a combination to limit its manufacture, may maintain suit for its infringement. Strait v. National Harrow Co., 51 Fed. 819. 1 Fed. Anti-Trust Dec. 52. Act does not include common carriers; an agreement to maintain reasonable rates not violative of either section one or section two. United States v. Trans-Missouri Freight Asso., 53 Fed. 440, 1 Fed. Anti-Trust Dec. 80. Affirmed. 58 Fed. 58, 7 C. C. A. 15, 24 L. R. A. 73, 1 Fed. Anti-Trust Dec. 186. Reversed. 166 U. S. 290, 41 L. Ed. 1007, 17 Sup. Ct. 540, 1 Fed. Anti-Trust Dec. 648. Combinations of laborers illegal. United States v. Workingman's Amalg. Council, 54 Fed. 994, 26 L. R. A. 158, 1 Fed. Anti-Trust Dec. 110; Waterhouse v. Comer, 55 Fed. 149, 1 Fed. Anti-Trust Dec. 119. All contracts and combinations in restraint of interstate trade illegal, but

buying up by one corporation of all competing concerns not a violation of the statute. United States v. Knight, 60 Fed. 306, 1 Fed. Anti-Trust Dec. 250. Affirmed, same style case, 60 Fed. 934, 9 C. C. A. 297, 1 Fed. Anti-Trust Dec. 258, 24 L. R. A. 428, 156 U. S. 1, 11, 39 L. Ed. 325, 15 Sup. Ct. 249, 1 Fed. Anti-Trust Dec. 379, 387, holding that a monopoly in manufacture is not prohibited by the act. A combination to compel carriers engaged in interstate transportation to accede to certain demands illegal, whether such demands be reasonable or unreasonable. United States v. Elliott, 62 Fed. 801, 64 Fed. 27, 1 Fed. Anti-Trust Dec. 262, 311. Labor boycott violates act. Thomas v. Cincinnati, N. O. & T. P. Ry. Co., 62 Fed. 803, 1 Fed. Anti-Trust Dec. 266. Violence and intimidation for the purpose of preventing the moving of trains engaged in interstate commerce violates the act. Re Grand Jury, 62 Fed. 840, 1 Fed. Anti-Trust Dec. 301. Mentioned but not decided. Arthur v. Oakes, 63 Fed. 310, 329, 11 C. C. A. 209, 25 L. R. A. 414, 1 Fed. Anti-Trust Dec. 310. The word "conspiracy" broad enough to cover conspiracies of labor in restraint of trade or commerce. United States v. Debs, 64 Fed. 724, 1 Fed. Anti-Trust Dec. 322. Writ of habeas corpus denied. Re Debs, 158 U. S. 564, 39 L. Ed. 1092, 15 Sup. Ct. 900, 1 Fed. Anti-Trust Dec. 565. A corporation organized to secure assignments of all patents relating to a particular apparatus and to fix and regulate the prices thereof is illegal. National Harrow Co. v. Quick, 67 Fed. 130, 1 Fed. Anti-Trust Dec. 443, 608. Affirmed, same style case, 74 Fed. 236, 20 C. C. A. 410. National Harrow Co. v. Hench, 76 Fed. 667, 1 Fed. AntiTrust Dec. 610. Affirmed, same style case, $83 Fed. 36, 27 C. C. A. 349, 39 L. R. A. 299, 1 Fed. Anti-Trust Dec. 742. See also same style case, 84 Fed. 226, 1 Fed. Anti-Trust Dec. 746. “A conspiracy is a combination of two or more persons, by concerted action, to accomplish a criminal or unlawful purpose, or some purpose not in itself unlawful or criminal, by criminal or unlawful means, the common design being the essence of the charge." This case, which was a charge to a jury, defines trade and commerce and holds "that Pullman cars in use upon the roads are instrumentalities of commerce." United States v. Cassidy, 67 Fed. 698, 702, 1 Fed. Anti-Trust Dec. 449, 455, citing Pettibone v. United States, 148 U. S. 197, 203, 37 L. Ed. 419,

[ocr errors]

13 Sup. Ct. 542. Not applicable to a state which by its laws assumes a monopoly of the liquor traffic. Lowenstein v. Evans, 69 Fed. 908, 1 Fed. Anti-Trust Dec. 598. An interstate carrier may legally make an exclusive arrangement with another carrier for through transportation. Prescott & A. C. R. Co. v. Atchison, T. & S. F. R. Co., 73 Fed. 438, 1 Fed. Anti-Trust Dec. 604. One having received the services of a tug cannot escape payment therefor, although the tug owners are members of an association illegal under the act. The Charles E. Wiswall, 74 Fed. 802, 1 Fed. Anti-Trust Dec. 608. Affirmed. Same style case, 86 Fed. 671, 30 C. C. A. 339, 1 Fed. Anti-Trust Dec. 850. The statute covers, and was intended to cover, common carriers by railroad, and prohibits all agreements and combinations in restraint of trade or commerce, regardless of the question whether or not such agreements were reasonable. United States v. Trans-Missouri Freight Asso., 166 U. S. 290, 327, 335, 41 L. Ed. 1007, 17 Sup. Ct. 540, 1 Fed. Anti-Trust Dec. 648. All restraints prohibited, whether reasonable or unreasonable, and whether or not the law is violated by the practical workings and results of the association alleged to be an illegal combination. United States v. Hopkins, 82 Fed. 529, 1 Fed. Anti-Trust Dec. 725, 748. Reversed because the business was not interstate commerce. Hopkins v. United States, 171 U. S. 578, 43 L. Ed. 290, 19 Sup. Ct. 40, 1 Fed. Anti-Trust Dec. 941. Followed. Anderson v. United States, 171 U. S. 604, 43 L. Ed. 300, 19 Sup. Ct. 50, 1 Fed. Anti-Trust Dec. 967. Any restraint illegal. United States v. Coal Dealers' Asso., 85 Fed. 252, 1 Fed. Anti-Trust Dec. 749. A contract operating as a restraint in soliciting orders for and selling goods in one state to be delivered in another is within the act. The doctrine of the common law as well as the effect of the statute discussed. United States v. Addyston Pipe & Steel Co., 85 Fed. 271, 29 C. C. A. 141, 46 L. R. A. 122, 1 Fed. Anti-Trust Dec. 772. Affirmed. Addyston Pipe & Steel Co. v. United States, 175 U. S. 211, 44 L. Ed. 136, 20 Sup. Ct. 96, 1 Fed. Anti-Trust Dec. 1009, but decree modified so as not to affect commerce wholly within a state. An independent dealer who, without knowledge of the intention of the buyer, sells all his product to one who makes the purchase as part of a general scheme of monopoly does not violate

the law. Carter-Crume Co. v. Peurrung, 86 Fed. 439, 30 C. C. A. 174, 1 Fed. Anti-Trust Dec. 844. Allegations sufficient to bring ease within the law. Lowry v. Tile, Mantel & Grate Asso., 98 Fed. 817, 1 Fed. Anti-Trust Dec. 995. Affirmed. Montague v. Lowry, 115 Fed. 27, 52 C. C. A. 621, 2 Fed. Anti-Trust Dec. 112, 193 U. S. 38, 48 L. Ed. 608, 24 Sup. Ct. 307, 2 Fed. Anti-Trust Dec. 327. A note payable to a corporation for goods cannot be avoided because such corporation is a trust organized and operating in violation of the act. Union Sewer-Pipe Co. v. Connelly, 99 Fed. 354, 2 Fed. Anti-Trust Dec. 1. Affirmed on the point annotated and also holding that the Illinois Anti-Trust Act was void because it exempted agricultural products and live stock from its provisions. Connelly v. Union Sewer-Pipe Co., 184 U. S. 540, 46 L. Ed. 679, 22 Sup. Ct. 431, 2 Fed. Anti-Trust Dec. 118. An infringer of a patent cannot defend on the ground that the owner thereof is organized in violation of the act and procured the patent in pursuance of such illegal organization. National Folding Box & Paper Co. v. Robertson, 99 Fed. 985. 2 Fed. Anti-Trust Dec. 4; Otis Elevator Co. v. Geiger, 107 Fed. 131. 2 Fed. Anti-Trust Dec. 66; General Elec. Co. v. Wise, 119 Fed. 922, 2 Fed. Anti-Trust Dec. 205: United States Consolidated Seeded Raisin Co. v. Griffin, 126 Fed. 364, 61 C. C. A. 334, 2 Fed. Anti-Trust Dec. 288. If trade is restrained by a contract or combination, it is an illegal act, even though the public may be benefited thereby. United States v. Chesapeake & O. Fuel Co., 105 Fed. 93, 2 Fed. Anti-Trust Dec. 34. Affirmed. Chesapeake & O. Fuel Co. v. United States, 115 Fed. 610, 53 C. C. A. 256, 2 Fed. Anti-Trust Dec. 151. A combination of manufacturers and dealers, each member of which paid certain entrance fees and dues and the constitution of which prohibited its members from buying from other than members, illegal. Lowry v. Tile, Mantel & Grate Asso., 106 Fed. 38, 2 Fed. Anti-Trust Dec. 53. Affirmed. Montague v. Lowry, 115 Fed. 27, 52 C. C. A. 621, 2 Fed. Anti-Trust Dec. 112, 193 U. S. 38, 48 L. Ed. 608, 24 Sup. Ct. 307, 2 Fed. Anti-Trust Dec. 327. A pooling combination of carriers is illegal, and a carrier party thereto cannot maintain a suit for injunction against a ticket broker who sells non-transferable tickets issued as part of the pooling agreement. Delaware, L. & W.

R. Co. v. Frank, 110 Fed. 689, 2 Fed. Anti-Trust Dec. 81. Immunity act of Feb. 11, 1893, does not apply to this act. Foot v. Buchanan, 113 Fed. 156, 2 Fed. Anti-Trust Dec. 103. A private individual may successfully defend an action brought against him on a contract in violation of this act. A patentee may legally put restraint on a licensee of the patent, although such restraints are violative of commerce in the patented article. Bement v. National Harrow Co., 186 U. S. 70, 46 L. Ed. 1058, 22 Sup. Ct. 747, 2 Fed. Anti-Trust Dec. 169. But the contract extending beyond the protection of the patent is illegal. Indiana Mfg. Co. v. J. I. Case, Threshing Mch. Co., 148 Fed. 21. Reversed, same style case, 154 Fed. 365, 83 C. C. A. 343. A paving contract limiting the material used to that manufactured by only one company is not illegal. Field v. Barber Asphalt Paving Co., 117 Fed. 925, 2 Fed. Anti-Trust Dec. 192. Affirmed, same style case, 194 U. S. 618, 48 L. Ed. 1142, 24 Sup. Ct. 784, 2 Fed. AntiTrust Dec. 555. The statute includes all combinations which directly and substantially restrict interstate commerce, and applies to interstate carriers. The act is violated by a contract by which a majority of the stock of each of two competing roads is transferred to a corporation organized to vote such stock, the voting corporation issuing its stock to the holders of the stock of the two railroad corporations. United States v. Northern Securities Co., 120 Fed. 721, 2 Fed. AntiTrust Dec. 215. Affirmed, reviewing and discussing former anti-trust decisions of the court. Northern Securities Co. v. United States, 193 U. S. 197, 48 L. Ed. 679, 24 Sup. Ct. 436, 2 Fed. Anti-Trust Dec. 338. A board of trade may sell its quotations to a telegraph company with the limitation that they shall not be furnished to a bucket shop. Board of Trade of Chicago v. Christie Grain & Stock Co., 121 Fed. 608, 2 Fed. Anti-Trust Dec. 233. Reversed on other grounds. Christie Grain & Stock Co. v. Board of Trade of Chicago, 125 Fed. 161, 61 C. C. A. 11. Circuit court of appeals reversed and circuit court affirmed same style case. Board of Trade of Chicago v. Christie Grain & Stock Co., 198 U. S. 236, 49 L. Ed. 1031, 25 Sup. Ct. 637, 2 Fed. Anti-Trust Dec. 717. A combination to restrain trade illegal, although prices resulting therefrom reasonable. United States v. Swift &

« PreviousContinue »