Obrázky stránek
PDF
ePub

CHAPTER CXIII.

Unlawful Monopolies and Conspiracies.

§ 391. Complaints [or petitions]

Page

1550

Form No. 932. For damages for conspiracy to injure business. 1550
Form No. 933. For damages for conspiracy to injure business

[blocks in formation]

Form No. 934. Averment of damages for conspiracy of whole-
sale merchants in restraint of trade.......

[merged small][ocr errors]
[blocks in formation]

1553

1553

Form No. 935. Defense averring right to regulate the business
of defendants to prevent ruinous competition
of rates, in action for alleged conspiracy of
underwriters .

1553

§ 391. COMPLAINTS [OR PETITIONS].

FORM No. 932-For damages for conspiracy to injure business.

(In Ertz v. Produce Exchange, 79 Minn. 140; 81 N. W. 737; 79 Am. St. Rep. 433; 48 L. R. A. 90.)

[Title of court and cause.]

The plaintiff complains of the defendants, and alleges:

1. That plaintiff is now, and for two and a half years past has been, engaged at the city of M. in the business of a commission. merchant, buying and selling farm produce and commodities.

2. That his profits from his business prior to the committing of the wrongs hereinafter stated by the defendants were $20,000 per year; that to enable him to conduct his business it has been and it is necessary for him to buy such farm produce and commodities at M. and resell the same to his customers.

3. That defendants during the time the plaintiff has so conducted his business were, and still are, engaged in buying and selling farm produce and commodities, and they are practically all the persons, firms, and corporations who are engaged in such a business in the city of M., and during such time they have controlled, and still do control, regulate, and govern the quantity and price of such farm produce and commodities and the purchase and sale thereof.

4. That plaintiff, prior to July 19, 1899, was accustomed to and did purchase the product and commodities so dealt in by him from the

defendants, and paid them therefor in full; but on the day above named and at various subsequent times the defendant The Produce Exchange conspired, confederated, and agreed to and with the other defendants herein not to sell to or to buy of the plaintiff any farm produce or commodities for the purpose of carrying on his business. 5. That the defendant The Produce Exchange then and there did maliciously solicit and procure from all of its co-defendants and each of them, and from many other persons to the plaintiff unknown, an agreement not to sell to or buy from plaintiff such products and commodities, and did so induce its co-defendants and each of them and other persons, by the aid of and through the influence of all the defendants, not to sell to or buy of the plaintiff any such products and commodities for the purpose of his business or otherwise.

6. That in pursuance of such conspiracy each and all of the defendants have, with such malicious and unlawful intent, since July 19, 1899, refused so to sell to or buy of the plaintiff, and have daily circulated among and reported to the patrons of the plaintiff that he was unable to buy such products and commodities, with the intent of inducing such patrons to discontinue doing business with the plaintiff.

7. That the business of the plaintiff by reason of the premises has been ruined, and he has been damaged in the sum of $25,000. [Concluding part.]

FORM No. 933-For damages for conspiracy to injure business of a butcher. (In Delz v. Winfree, 80 Tex. 400; 16 S. W. 111; 26 Am. St. Rep. 755.) [Title of court and cause.]

The plaintiff complains of the defendants, and alleges:

That plaintiff at the time hereinafter stated was pursuing the occupation of a butcher in the city of Galveston, and was making, and would have continued to make, large profits and gains in the business, but for the grievances committed by the defendants as hereinafter alleged; that in the prosecution of his business he had opened and was conducting two butcher-shops in said city for the sale of different kinds of fresh meat; that it became necessary that he should buy live animals suitable and fit to be slaughtered for the purposes of his business as a butcher, and for a long time before and at the time of the commission by the defendants of the grievances herein stated he was engaged in the business of buying live animals suitable

and fit to be slaughtered and sold as fresh butchers' meat, and which he slaughtered and sold as such at his said two butcher-shops; that the persons from whom the plaintiff bought said live animals were engaged in the business of transporting to Galveston, and receiving for sale live animals suitable and fit to be slaughtered and sold as butchers' meat, and in selling such live animals for such purposes to whomsoever would buy; that long before and at the time of the commission of the wrongs herein charged the defendants W. N. & P. and B. & B. were engaged as separate firms in said business of receiving and selling live animals for the purpose aforesaid on Galveston Island, and were, and are now, the only persons or association of persons so engaged in said business in Galveston County; that without justifiable cause and unlawfully, and with the malicious intent to molest, obstruct, hinder, and prevent plaintiff from carrying on his said business and making a living thereby, the said W. N. & P., on or about the 1st day of July, 1889, and at divers times thereafter, and until the filing of this petition, did combine, confederate, and conspire with the said firm of B. & B., and with one G. B., a butcher, not to sell to petitioner for cash any live animals or slaughtered meat for the purpose or for the prosecution of his said business; that the said W. N. & P. solicited and procured from said B. & B. not to sell any live animals to plaintiff, and did so induce said G. B., and others to plaintiff unknown, not to sell to him slaughtered meat for the purpose of his business; that in pursuance of said combination each of said firms refused to sell plaintiff live animals when he applied to them to purchase at their own price, in money which he then offered to pay them, and that said G. B. likewise refused to sell him slaughtered meat; that by reason of such unlawful combinations and malicious interference with his business, plaintiff was compelled to close up and discontinue his business in one of his shops, and in order to continue it at the other of his shops, he has been, and is now, forced to buy slaughtered meat at a great disadvantage and at higher prices than he would have had to pay but for the aforesaid unlawful combination and malicious interference with and hindrance of his business by defendants. [Averment as to damages, etc.]

[Concluding part.]

FORM No. 934-Averment of damages for conspiracy of wholesale merchants in restraint of trade.

(In Hawarden v. Youghiogheny etc. Coal Co., 111 Wis. 545; 87 N. W. 472; 55 L. R. A. 828.)

[Title of court and cause.]

[After introductory part, and facts of conspiracy of wholesalers, the damages to the plaintiff are averred as follows:] that plaintiff, E. H., in September, 1898, purchased a two-thirds interest in the established coal business of J. B. C. and wife at Superior, and all the teams, tools, office, and appliances used by said C. and wife in that trade; that C. and wife had an established retail trade in coal, based upon the right of any person to go into business and to buy of the wholesalers at the market price for retail; that H. and C. carried on the business until June, 1900, when H. bought out C., and the good-will of the business; that the profits of their business during the seasons from September to June were $40 a month, and that the profits from September, 1900, to April 1, 1901, would have been $55 a month; that as the result of said conspiracy plaintiff, H., was forced out of the business and his trade destroyed, and he thereby suffered damages in the sum of $500.

[Concluding part.]

§ 392. ANSWER.

FORM No. 935-Defense averring right to regulate the business of defendants to prevent ruinous competition of rates, in action for alleged conspiracy of underwriters.

(In Continental Ins. Co. v. Board of Underwriters of the Pacific, 67 Fed. (C. C.) 310.)

[Title of court and cause.]

[After introductory part, denials of formation of conspiracy among underwriters, etc.]

1. Defendants allege that said board of underwriters was created for, and its object is, to regulate the business of its members, and to prevent, whenever possible by arrangement between themselves, a ruinous competition of rates, and that they, in common with other companies, have attempted, and do attempt, to obtain business for their respective offices, and seek to obtain business which is placed in other offices, and that such conduct is now and always has been followed by the plaintiff.

2. Defendants aver that they have done no act, and do not contemplate any act, which will damage the plaintiff other than such as may arise from competition, and that the acts of the defendants have been done as individuals to protect respectively their business against competition offered, and have not been done under any conspiracy or combination whatsoever; that the object of their association is to promote the safety and success of their business; that it is voluntary and is not designed to admit or exclude from its membership the plaintiff or any person or to compel it or other companies to join the same.

[Concluding part.]

For form of an information in the nature of quo warranto by a state in an action instituted to obtain the forfeiture of a charter and to revoke the license of a foreign corporation to do business where the said corporation is alleged to have entered into an unlawful trust and combination against the laws of the state, prohibited by what is known as the anti-trust statutes, see State ex inf. Hadley, Attorney-General, v. Standard Oil Co., 218 Mo. 1, 116 S. W. 902, 907-912.

For form of judgment and decree under anti-trust statutes dissolving an unlawful conspiracy and enjoining the continuance thereof, see State ex inf. Hadley, Attorney-General, v. Standard Oil Co., 218 Mo. 1, 116 S. W. 902, 1052, set out in the dissenting opinion in the reported case.

For form of findings of fact and conclusions of law reported to the court on a legal proceeding in the nature of quo warranto under the "anti-trust statutes," see State v. Standard Oil Co., 218 Mo. 1, 116 S. W. 902, 981-1005.

For illegal combinations within Sherman anti-trust act, see note, 2 Am. & Eng. Ann. Cas. 956-960.

Anti-trust actions.-For an exhaustive review of federal and state anti-trust statutes, and of the scope of decisions thereon, see State v. Duluth Board of Trade, 107 Minn. 506, 121 N. W. 395-415, 23 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1260.

Anti-trust statutes designed to restrain the formation of unlawful trusts, combinations, and conspiracies in restraint of trade, under the laws of the state of Missouri, and found in Revised Statutes 1899, arts. 1, 2, ch. 143, (Ann. Stats. 1906, pp. 4150-4153 and 4157,) and the provisions thereof (§§ 8965, 8966, 8971, 8978), set out in full and construed in State ex inf. Hadley, Attorney-General, v. Standard Oil Co., 218 Mo. 1, 116 S. W. 902, 1006-1007, 1011, 1012, 1018.

State anti-trust statutes enumerated in State v. Duluth Board of Trade, 107 Minn. 506, 121 N. W. 395, 407, 23 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1260.

The mere fact of a conspiracy can not be made the subject of a civil action. Conspiracy merely gives the persons injured a remedy against parties not otherwise connected with the wrong. It is only significant as constituting matter of aggravation, and as such tending to strengthen the plaintiff's right of recovery. Repeated allegations of conspiracy between defendants have therefore but little significance, unless in addition there is stated a concrete cause of action: Remmers v. Remmers, 217 Mo. 841, 117 S. W. 1117, 1121.

« PředchozíPokračovat »