Page. Chattanooga Foundry & Pipe Works v. City of Atlanta, 203 113 Cilley v. United Shoe Machinery Co., 152 F., 726-- 203 City of Atlanta, Chattanooga Foundry & Pipe Works v., 203 Clabaugh v. Southern Wholesale Grocers Ass'n, 181 F., 706---- 113 812 44 480 Creamery Package Co., Virtue v., 179 F., 115___ 794 470 103 752 975 Fertilizer Trust. See U. S. v. Virginia-North Carolina Chemical Co. Goshen Rubber Works v. Single Tube A. & B. Tire Co., 166 571 Grand Jury, In re Charge to, 151 F., 834- 156 Hale v. O'Connor Coal & Supply Co., 181 F., 267. J. I. Case Threshing Machine Co., Indiana Mfg. Co. v., 148 F., 21__ J. D. Park & Sons Co. v. Hartman, 153 F., 24.... 229 470 65 Jaynes Drug Co., Dr. Miles Medical Co. v., 149 F., 838- Laemmle, Motion Picture Patents Co. v., 178 F., 104. 764 426 41 208 U S., 274___ 324 Lehigh Valley Railroad Co., Meeker v., 162 F., 354 380 183 F., 548__. 969 Loeb v. Eastman Kodak Co., 183 F., 704_. Licorice Paste Trust. See U. S. v. MacAndrews & Forbes Co. Leonard v. Abner-Drury Brewing Co., 25 Appeal (D. C.) Cases, 161____ 1 65 975 Loewe v. Lawlor, 148 F., 924_ 41 208 U. S., 274_. 324 Page. McConnell v. Camors-McConnell Co., 152 F., 321- Mannington v. Hocking Valley Ry. Co., 183 F., 133_ Meeker v. Lehigh Valley Railroad Co., 162 F., 354_. Penna Railroad Co., American Union Coal Co. v., 159 F., 278___ Penna Sugar Ref. Co. v. American Sugar Ref. Co., 160 F., 144___ People's Tobacco Co. v. American Tobacco Co., 170 F., 396_-- 660 866 R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. Allen Bros. Tobacco Co., 151 F., 134 United States Tobacco Co. v. American Tobacco Co., 163 F., 701- United States v. Reading Company, 183 F., 427– United States v. Standard Oil Co., 152 F., 290__. United States, Union Pacific Coal Co. v., 173 F., 737----- Virginia-North Carolina Chemical Co., United States v., 163 F., 66 395 Weisert Bros. Tobacco Co. v. American Tobacco Co., 163 F., 712_ 426 864 208 Wm. Callam & Son, Northwestern Consol. Milling Co. v., 177 F., 759 Yale & Towne Mfg. Co., Blount Mfg Co. v., 166 F., 555---- 575 FEDERAL ANTI-TRUST DECISIONS VOL. 3. 1906-1910. [161] LEONARD v. ABNER-DRURY BREWING COMPANY... (Court of Appeals, District of Columbia.) [25 Appeal (D. C.) Cases, 161.] TRUSTS AND MONOPOLIES; UNJUST COMPETITION; RESTRAINT OF TRADE; ANTI-TRUST ACT; CONSPIRACY; EQUITY JURISDICTION; COSTS ON APPEAL. 1. A combination between several brewing companies forming a brewers' association, entered into for the purpose of preventing competition in the manufacture and sale of their product, fixing the price, and controlling the disposition of the same to retail dealers, providing that its members shall not sell such product at prices fixed by themselves nor below prices fixed by the association, and allotting the business of selling the same among them, and prohibiting any one of them from selling to customers allotted to another, is a trust or conspiracy in restraint of trade within the 3d section of the anti-trust act of Congress (26 Stat. at L. 209, 647, U. S. Comp. Stat. 1901, p. 3201); and an attempt to coerce another company to enter the trust and obey its regulations is an invasion of private right, as well as inimical to the interests a Illegal Trusts and Monopolies.-For the authorities bearing on the question of illegal trusts under modern anti-trust laws both state and Federal, see editorial note to Whitwell v. Continental Tobacco Co. 64 L. R. A. 689. 1 Syllabus. of the public; and the purposes and practices of such a combination or conspiracy are equally violative of the common law, which prevails in this District, and of which the 3d section of the statute is declaratory." 2. Such an agreement or combination can not be declared null and void in [162] equity at the suit of retail dealers engaged in purchasing and selling the product of a company sought to be compelled to join such association, but having no contract with it for the purchase of such product. Such a result can only be accomplished at the suit of the United States. 3. But where such retail dealers show that they have established a profitable business in selling the product of the company so sought to be coerced, which is unwilling to advance the price of the product, but wishes to continue to sell to them at the lower price, but, intimidated by the threats of the association, such company is about to yield to its demands, and will do so unless restrained, in which event there will be an advance in prices, and such dealers may thereupon be allotted as customers to some other member of the trust against their will, and be unable to purchase the product they have been dealing in even at the advanced price, and their business will be so destroyed,—an injunction will lie at their suit to prevent the doing or continuing of the wrongful acts, the remedy at law, if any, even under the statute giving three fold damages, being inadequate, and consequential damages, such as loss of trade and profits and failure of credit and business, not being ordinarily recoverable at law. 4. The fact that the anti-trust act of Congress makes a conspiracy in restraint of trade a crime, and provides a penalty therefor, does not necessarily impair the ordinary jurisdiction of equity, where the criminal acts work irreparable injury to property. The statute does not substitute its remedy for others which existed before its enactment. 5. Quære, Whether if the wrongs complained of by an individual, growing out of alleged acts in restraint of trade in the District of Columbia, as distinguished from acts relating to conspiracies in restraint of interstate commerce, should be remediless save by a resort to the anti-trust act of Congress, any party other than the United States can invoke the jurisdiction of equity to restrain their commission. 6. Where several brewing companies forming a combination or trust are charged by complainants in a bill in equity, retail dealers in malt liquors, with a conspiracy to compel another company to join the association, and such combination is held to be in restraint of trade, individuals who are officers of a labor union, and who are charged with attempting to procure its members to leave a • Syllabus, and statements of arguments copyrighted, 1906, by Charles Cowles Tucker. |