Obrázky stránek

C. C. A. 13. Same rule under a state law. Continental Securities Co. v. Interborough R. T. Co., 165 Fed. 945.

Notes of Decisions Rendered Since 1909.

Violations of an injunction decree punished. U. S. v. Southern Wholesale Grocers' Ass'n, 207 Fed. 434. Injunctive relief can be granted only at the suit of the government. Irving v. Neal, 209 Fed. 471; National Fireproofing Co. v. Masons' Builders' Ass'n, 169 Fed. 259, 94 C. C. A. 5:35, 26 L. R. A. (N. S.) 148; Greer v. Staller, 77 Fed. 1; Minnesota v. North Security Co., 194 U. S. 48, 48 L. Ed. 870, 24 Sup. Ct. 598; Paine Lumber Co. v. Neal, 212 Fed. 259; Paine Lumber Co. v. Neal, 214 Fed. 82, 130 C. C. A. 522, but said the court in 212 Fed. 259, 268 supra: The courts have time and again extended the equity arm to prevent the commission or continuance of injury directed against particular persons, and have protected employers against violence and sympathetic strikes." See also Jones v. Van Winkle, 131 Ga. 336, 62 S. E. 236, following Irving v. Neal & Lawler Co. v. Neal supra: Gill Engraving Co. v. Doerr, 214 Fed. 111, 118; Mitchell v. Hitchman Coal & Coke Co., 214 Fed. 685, 714. One who has in good faith withdrawn from the conspiracy not a proper party. U. S. v. E. I. Dupont De Nemours & Co., 188 Fed. 127. Proper parties to suit for injunction discussed. U. S. v. Reading Co., 226 U. S. 324, 57 L. Ed. 243, 33 Sup. Ct. 90, citing, Simpkins Fed. Suit 290 et seq. and modifying same styled case, 183 Fed. 427. See also same case, 228 U. S. 158, 57 L. Ed. 779, 33 Sup. Ct. 509, see also 188 Fed. 127 supra.

$ 490. Practice with Reference to Parties and Service of Subpena Thereon.—Whenever it shall appear to the court before which any proceeding under section four of this act may be pending that the ends of justice require that other parties should be brought before the court, the court may cause them to be summoned, whether they reside in the district in which the court is held or not; and subpoenas to that end may be served in any district by the marshal thereof.

Section five of the Act July 2, 1890, known as the Sherman Anti-Trust Act.

Injunction order may be enforced against defendants, within the scope of the order, though not named in the bill, such defendants being parties to the conspiracy. United States v. Elliott, 64 Fed. 27, 1 Fed. Anti-Trust Dec. 311. Cannot bring in non-residents of the district at suit by others than the government. Greer, Mills & Co. v. Stoller, 77 Fed. 1, 1 Fed. Anti-Trust Dec. 620. Non-residents of the state may be brought in as defendants. United States v. Standard Oil Co. of New Jersey, 152 Fed. 290; United States v. Virginia-Carolina Chemical Co., 163 Fed. 66; Northern Pac. R. Co. v. Pacific C. L. Mfg. Asso., 165 Fed. 1, 9, 91 C. C. A. 39.

$ 491. Property Owned under a Contract Violating This Act being in Course of Interstate Transportation May Be Seized and Forfeited.—Any property owned under any contract or by any combination, or pursuant to any conspiracy (and being the subject thereof) mentioned in section one of this act, and being in the course of transportation from one state to another, or to a foreign country, shall be forfeited to the United States, and may be seized and condemned by like proceedings as those provided by law for the forfeiture, seizure, and condemnation of property imported into the United States contrary to law.

Section six of Act July 2, 1890, known as the Sherman AntiTrust Act.

No seizure can be had of goods at the suit of the United States except of property imported into the United States contrary to act. 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, without discussion of the question. 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.

§ 492. Measure of Damages in Favor of Persons Injured.-Any person who shall be injured in his business or property by any other person or corporation by reason of anything forbidden or declared to be unlawful by this act, may sue therefor in any circuit court of the United States in the district in which the defendant resides or is found, without re spect to the amount in controversy, and shall recover three

[ocr errors]

fold the damages by him sustained, and the costs of suit including a reasonable attorney's fee.

Section seven of Act July 2, 1890, known as the Sherman Anti-Trust Act.

A person who has sold his business to an illegal combination cannot recover under this act. In suits for damages complaint must allege that the matters out of which the suit grows constitute interstate commerce. Bishop v. Am. Preservers' Co., 51 Fed. 272, 1 Fed. Anti-Trust Dec. 49. Must not only allege that the business damaged was interstate commerce but that the entire market was controlled. Dueber Watch Case Mfg. Co. v. Howard Watch & Clock Co., 55 Fed. 851, 1 Fed. Anti-Trust Dec. 178. Affirmed, same style case, 66 Fed. 637, 14 C. C. A. 14, 1 Fed. Anti-Trust Dec. 421. The private shipper cannot obtain a mandatory writ to compel the carrier to grant a right, though a circuit court, as a court of equity, can afford preventative relief in addition to damages. Gulf C. & S. F. Ry. Co. v. Miami S. S. Co., 86 Fed. 407, 421, 30 C. C. A. 142, 1 Fed. Anti-Trust Dec. 823, 842, 843. Remedy for damages exclusive and a private person cannot maintain equitable proceedings to enforce the law. So. Ind. Express Co. v. United States Express Co., 88 Fed. 659, 1 Fed. Anti-Trust Dec. 862. Affirmed. 92 Fed. 1022, 35 C. C. A. 172, 1 Fed. Anti-Trust Dec. 992; Block v. Standard Distilling and Distributing Co., 95 Fed. 978, 1 Fed. Anti-Trust Dec. 993. Limitation of time in which to bring suit is governed by the law of the state in which suit is brought. Atlanta v. Chattanooga Foundry & Pipe Co., 101 Fed. 900, 2 Fed. Anti-Trust Dec. 11. Reversed, same style case, 127 Fed. 23, 61 C. C. A. 387, 64 L. R. A. 721, 2 Fed. AntiTrust Dec. 299. Affirmed. Chattanooga Foundry & Pipe Co. v. Atlanta, 203 U. S. 390, 51 L. Ed. 241, 27 Sup. Ct. 65. To recover must not only show illegal combination but that plaintiff has suffered damages, that a combination of dealers sent out circulars denouncing a dealer outside the combination who sold in other states whereby his business is injured authorized a recovery. Gibbs v. McNeely, 102 Fed. 594, 2 Fed. Anti-Trust Dec. 25.

No recovery

for sales in the state. Same case, 107 Fed. 210, 2 Fed. Anti-Trust Dec. 71. Reversed, same case, 118 Fed. 120, 55 C. C. A. 70, 60

L. R. A. 152, 2 Fed, Anti-Trust Dec. 194, holding that though an agreement does not refer to interstate trade, it is within the act if its purpose and effect is to restrain such trade. A party to an illegal combination cannot recover damages against the combination for acts growing out of the contract creating the combination. Bishop v. American Preservers' Co., 105 Fed. 845, 1 Fed. Anti-Trust Dec. 51. Damages recoverable and attorney's fees in discretion of trial court. Lewry v. Tile Mantel & Grate Asso., 106 Fed. 38, 2 Fed. AntiTrust Dec. 53. Affirmed. Montague v. Lowry, 115 Fed. 27, 52 C. C. A. 621, 2 Fed. Anti-Trust Dec. 112, 193 l'. S. 38, 18 L. Ed. 608, 24 Sup. Ct. 307, 2 Fed. Anti-Trust Dec. 327. A minority stockholder, alleging the corporation has transferred its property to an illegal combination, cannot obtain an injunction against the transfer and damages in the same suit. Metcalf v. American School Furniture Co., 108 Fed. 909, 2 Fed. Anti-Trust Dec. 75. Affirmed. 113 Fed. 1020, 51 C. C. A. 599, 2 Fed. Anti-Trust Dec. 11. Bill dismissed. 122 Fed. 115, 2 Fed. Anti-Trust Dec. 234. Only actual damages can be recovered. Rule as to loss of profits stated. Central Coal & Coke Co. v. Hartman, 11 Fed. 96, 49 C. C. A. 244, 2 Fed. Anti-Trust Dec. 94. Damages cannot be recovered because a company refuses to sell its goods, unless the purchaser refuses to deal with independent companies, the defendant owing no duty to sell its products to plaintiff. Whitwell v. Continental Tob. Co., 125 Fed. 454, 60 C. C. A. 290, 6+ L. R. A. 689, 2 Fed. Anti-Trust Dec. 271. Petition for damages must definitely describe the combination and conspiracy. Rice v. Standard Oil Co., 134 Fed. 461, 2 Fed. Anti-Trust Dec. 633. Rule as to measure of damages and burden of proof. Loder v. Jayne, 142 Fed. 1010, 2 Fed. Anti-Trust Dec. 976. Reversed. Jayne v. Loder, 149 Fed. 21, 78 C. C. A. 653, 7 L. R. A. (N. S.) 984. In a suit for damages under this section, the allegations should be specific. Cilley v. United Shoe Mach. Co., 152 Fed. 726. One who is harmed in business or property may recover. Wheeler-Stenzel Co. v. National Window Glass Jobbers' Asso., 152 Fed. 864, 81 C. C. A. 658. A purchase of a competing refining company in order to monopolize the refining of sugar not illegal. Penn. Sugar Refining Co. v. American Sugar Refining Co., 160 Fed. 141. Reversed, same style case, 166 Fed. 254, 92 C. C. A. 318. No right of action when merely prevented from embarking on a new business. American Banana Co. v. United Fruit Co., 160 Fed. 184. Affirmed, same style case, 166 Fed. 261, 92 C. C. A. 325, 213 U. S. 347, 53 L. Ed. 826, 29 Sup. Ct. 511. Allegation held sufficient. Monarch Tob. Works v. American Tob. Co., 165 Fed. 774. Limitation law of the state in which suit is brought applies. Chattanooga Foundry & Pipe Works v. Atlanta, 203 U. S. 390, 51 L. Ed. 241, 27 Sup. Ct. 65.

Notes of Decisions Rendered Since 1909.

Remedy of a private individual is by suit for damages. National Fire Prcofing Co. v. Mason Builders' Ass'n, 169 Fed. 259, 94 C. C. A. 535 and cases following that case. Sec. 803 supro. Pleadings liberal in suits for damages. WareKramer Tobacco Co. v. Am. Tob. Co., 178 Fed. 117; Hale v. O'Connor Coal Supply Co., 181 Fed. 267.

That one of the purposes of the conspiracy is to increase rates the reasonableness of which has not been passed on by the Interstate Commerce Commission is no defense. Meeker v. Lehigh Valley R. Co., 183 Fed. 518, 106 C. C. A. 94, reversing Meeker v. Lehigh V. R. Co., 175 Fed. 320. The right of action for causing bankruptcy of a corporation is in its trustee in bankruptcy, not in a stockholder. Loeb v. Eastman Kodak Co., 183 Fed. 704, 106 C. C. A. 142; Corey v. Independent Ice Co., 207 Fed. 459; Fleitmann v. United Gas Improvement Co., 211 'ed. 103.

acts here pleaded state a cause of action and the remedy given by the act is a civil remedy. Strout v. United Shoe Machinery Co., 195 Fed, 313, same style case, 202 Fed. 602.

What must be alleged and proved. Buckeye Powder Co. v. E. I. Du Pont De Nemours Powder Co., 196 Fed. 514.

Alleging different things forbidden by Sections 1 and 2 constitutes duplicitous pleading. Cilley v. Shoe Mach. Co., 202 Fed. 598. Facts here sufficient to entitle a jury to pass thereon. Hale v. Hatch & North Coal Co., 204 Fed. 433, 122 C. C. A. 619. Specific injury must be proved. Metion Picture Patents Co. v. Eclair Film Co., 208 Fed. 416. Charge of the court to the jury discussed. Loewe v. Lawlor, 209 Fed. 721, 126 C. C. A. 445. Affirmed Lawlor v. Loewe, 236 U. S. 522, 59 L.

« PředchozíPokračovat »