Index-Digest. two together exceeded the tide-water price, and which contains a sufficient allegation of damage to plaintiff in his business as a coal dealer, states a cause of action under the act which is within the jurisdiction of a circuit court, the gist of the action being the unlawful conspiracy, and the fact that one of the means for carryng it into effect was an increase in freight rates, the reasonableness of which per se must first be determined under the provisions of Interstate Commerce Act, by the Interstate Commerce Commission, not constituting any ground for depriving plaintiff of the right of action expressly given by the Sherman Law. Meeker v. Lehigh Valley R. R. Co., 183 F., 551. 3-973 13. No Right of Action for Preventing the Embarking in Business.— The Sherman Law, authorizing recovery of treble damages, accruing through an unlawful combination in restraint of interstate and foreign commerce, gives no right of action to one who is not deprived of his existing profits, trade, or commerce by the formation or action of an unlawful combination or monopoly, but is merely prevented from embarking on a new enterprise by the threatening aspect of an already existing monopoly or combination. American Banana Co. v. United Fruit Co., 160 F., 188. 3-378 14. Same-Acts in Foreign Countries.-That the banana market of Central America or some portions thereof has been closed to plaintiff because defendant offered higher prices to producers than did anyone else, and so obtained long-term contracts for the exclusive purchase of the producers' product, did not constitute a violation of the Sherman Law prohibiting combinations, monopolies, etc. Ib. 3-379 15. Same-Enticement of Employees.-That defendant had enticed or sought to entice away plaintiff's employees and to oppress such of defendant's own employees as presumed to buy stock In plaintiff company, its business rival, did not of itself constitute a violation of the Sherman Law, prohibiting combinations and monopolies, so as to entitle plaintiff to recover damages on that ground alone. Ib. 3-379 16. Immaterial Whether Restraint be Reasonable or Unreasonable.— In an action to recover treble damages caused by an unlawful combination in restraint of foreign commerce, in violation of the Sherman Law, whether the restraint of trade caused by the combination was reasonable or unreasonable, was immaterial. Thomsen v. Union Castle Mail S. S. Co., 166 F., 253. (Contra. See U. S. v. Standard Oil Co., 221 U. S., 1.) 3—551 17. Same Where a combination in restraint of foreign commerce, in violation of the Sherman Law, was put in operation in the United States and affected her foreign commerce, it was not Index-Digest. material to a suit by a person injured thereby that it was formed in a foreign country. Ib. 3-551 18. Same-Where a combination in restraint of foreign commerce was continuing, it was not material to plaintiff's right to recover treble damages sustained thereby, under the Sherman Law, whether the combination was entered into before or after plaintiffs commenced business, it being equally unlawful to prevent a person from engaging in business as to drive a person out of business. Ib. 3-551 19. For Damages, Evidence Sufficient to Submit Case to Jury.-In an action by a private individual to recover threefold damages, authorized by section 7 of the Sherman Law, against an alleged combination of coal dealers in a city, engaged in interstate commerce, to force plaintiff out of business and into bankruptcy, which they were successful in doing, evidence held to entitle plaintiff to submission to the jury of the question whether a combination and conspiracy among defendants existed, whether they maintained a secret organization to keep up prices and to boycott dealers who did not enter the organization, and whether plaintiff was injured as the result of such conspiracy. Hale v. Hatch & North Coal Co., 204 F., 435. 5-169 20. Suit to Enjoin, under Sherman Law, Maintained only at Suit of United States, and by New York under State Law, and not by Private Party.-Though an agreement between members of certain carpenters' and woodworkers' unions binding their members not to work with building trim manufactured in nonunion factories was in restraint of trade, and in violation of the Sherman Law and General Business Law of New York, section 340, prohibiting such agreements, a suit to enjoin the enforcement thereof could be maintained only at the instance of the United States or the State of New York, and not by a third person injured thereby. Paine Lumber Co. v. Neal, 212 F., 266. 5 442 21. Same-Private Party can not Maintain Suit to Restrain under New York Law unless Affected Injuriously. Though an agree ment between certain carpenters' and woodworkers' unions to refuse to use building trim manufactured in non-union factories was in restraint of trade and constitutes a misdemeanor in violation of Penal Law of New York, article 54, section 580, subdivision 6, prohibiting a conspiracy to commit acts injurious to trade or commerce, a private individual was not entitled to a suit to restrain the enforcement of such agreement, in the absence of proof that it was aimed at or affected him inJuriously as distinguished from the general public. Ib. 5 444 Index-Digest, 22. Private Party to Maintain Suit to Restrain, under Sherman Law, must have been direct object of Unlawful Agreement.-The carrying out of an agreement in violation of the Sherman Law, or otherwise in restraint of trade, will not be enjoined at the suit of a private party, not shown to have been the direct object of such agreement or to have suffered special damages. Paine Lumber Co. v. Neal, 214 F., 83. 5 446 23. Private Party may not Maintain Action to Enforce the Sherman Law, unless he can show a Special Damage to Himself.-A private individual may not maintain an action to enforce generally the provisions of the Sherman Law; but, in order to rely upon its provisions, an individual must base his cause of action upon its violation, and show a special damage to himself arising from such violation not suffered by the general public. Union Pacific Railroad Co. v. Frank, 226 F., 911. 5-922 24. Labor Organization, although Unincorporated, an Association under § 7 of the Sherman Law. In the Sherman Law, § 8, providing that the word "person" or "persons," wherever used in the act, shall be deemed to include corporations and associations existing under or authorized by the laws of either the United States, the laws of any of the Territories, the laws of any State, or the laws of any foreign country, the word "associations" includes unincorporated associations, such as labor organizations recognized by Federal and State legislation as lawful, and such an organization may be sued by its name, under section 7, by one injured in his business or property by its action in violation of the provisions of the act. Dowd v. United Mine Workers of America, 235 F., 6. 6-657 25. Same-Party Preparing to Engage in Interstate Commerce and Prevented by Unlawful Acts, may Maintain Action. That a plaintiff, at the time of the alleged unlawful acts of defendants, was not actually engaged in interstate commerce, does not deprive him of a right of action, where he was preparing to so engage and was prevented by the wrongful acts of defendants. Ib. 6-657 26. Subscribers may maintain, against telephone company, to compel service, where service is prevented by a strike.—The Judicial Code, section 37, authorizing the dismissal of a suit in the Federal court if it should appear that it does not properly involve a dispute within the jurisdiction of the court, or that parties have been collusively made or joined for the purpose of giving the court jurisdiction, does not deprive the Federal court of jurisdiction over a suit by the subscribers of an interstate telephone company whose employees were on a strike, to compel the company to furnish as to clothe service it had ontmoet n furnish, though the parties hereto were riendly antagones, and the telephone company was willing to have be controversy submitted to the Federal court, since he collusion which repres the court of jurisdicCon is not in agreement between the pares that an existing dispute Cognizanie a te Federn urs sh be brought there, but in agreement se to just be so the court with in apparent jurisdiction winch would not have. Stephens 7. Thio State Telephone Co. 240 F., 36. 6-929 Same-Several subscribers may maintain suit to compel service, withough each has adequate remedy at law-nder serdina Indietal Code, providing that sits in equity shall not be maintained in the Federal courts where a plain. adequate, and onete remedy may be had at law, the fact that each e of a argumber of subscribers of an interstate telephone ompany might have an adequate remedy at law for de ateriation of the service which he contracted for does by revent a suit by several subscribers, on behalf of all, to pompe i restoration of the service, since, while the several Is it aw were being tried, the suspension of service word ontane, and night reach the proportions of a public inder ntain three lation 5334 Sher in the ld, the ecause n, cone Sherhat act is busileclared Co., 207 5-342 ider the suit in inst that y to the Sherman here be a tiff is a tting him › V. Wels5-431 not enjoin e Sherman ws of the of that act. 1-630 1 suspended ation of the es of memimself and its entirety : a stranger 1-630 fer of Propay maintain stockholders I transfer of 1 conspiracy int of trade Index-Digest. 29. Same-Receivers May Sue for Injury to Corporation.—Where a corporation is in the hands of a receiver, an action for injuries to the corporation should be prosecuted by him for the benefit of the corporation's creditors. Ib. 3--592 30. Injury to Corporation-Right of Stockholders to Sue for Damages.-The Sherman Law, which provides that "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 and shall recover threefold the damages by him sustained," does not give a right of action to a stockholder or creditor of a corporation by reason of a combination or conspiracy alleged to have been in violation of the act and to have caused the bankruptcy of the corporation, resulting in the loss of plaintiff's stock or debt; the right of action in such case being in the corporation or its trustee in bankruptcy. Loeb v. Eastman Kodak Co., 183 F., 709. 3-982 31. Suit by Stockholder.-A stockholder of a corporation may sue in a Federal court to restrain another corporation which has obtained control of a majority of its stock from voting the same for the purpose of electing its own directors and eliminating competition between the two companies in alleged violation of law and to the irreparable injury of complainant as a stockholder, although the bill does not show a formal demand upon the directors to bring the suit as provided by equity rule 94, even conceding that the right of action is in fact that of the corporation, where the allegations prima facie negative collusion and fairly show that such demand would have been unavailing. Bigelow v. Calumet & Hecla Mining Co., 155 F., 879. 3-308 32. Same Special Injury to Complainant-A Bill by a Stockholder of a Corporation, who is also an officer and director, to enJoin the voting of stock by another corporation for the alleged purpose of changing the management in its own interest and creating an illegal monopoly to the detriment of the minority stockholders, shows such a special interest in complainant as distinct from the public and such threatened irreparable injury to his rights as to justify the granting of a preliminary injunction. Ib. 3-310 33. Same-Preliminary Injunction—Grounds-The Bill of a Stockholder and supporting affidavits; held, to make a showing which entitled him to a preliminary injunction to restrain defendant from voting stock to change the officers and management of the corporation pending a hearing on the merits. |