to secure the uniformity of the enforcement of the Act so far as direct procedure in equity was concerned, according to the uniform plan applicable throughout the entire country. This case had been brought in the State court and removed by the defendant to the Circuit Court of the United States on the ground that it was one arising under the Constitution and laws of the United States. The Circuit Court sustained the jurisdiction and dismissed the bill upon the merits. 123 Fed. Rep. 692. But the Supreme Court reversed the decree, with directions to remand the case to the State court on the ground that the Circuit Court of the United States could not acquire jurisdiction of such proceeding, although both parties urged the court to take jurisdiction, as the State of Minnesota was not a citizen within the meaning of the Constitution, and there was no diverse citizenship to sustain the jurisdiction of the federal court.

SECTION 5.

§ 335. Section 5 of the Act.

§ 335. Additional parties may be summoned.-SEC. 5. 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.

The comprehensive jurisdiction vested in the court under this section is enforced by the provisions of the Act of February 11, 1903, known as the Expedition Act, infra, § 347, whereunder suits in equity brought by the United States may be given precedence over others on the certificate of the Attorney General as to the general public importance of the suit.

SECTION 6.

§ 336. Section 6 of the Act.

337. Enforcement of seizure of goods under section 6.

§ 336. Seizure and condemnation of property.- SEc. 6. 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.

§ 337. Enforcement of seizure of goods under section 6. The seizure of goods authorized under section 6 can be enforced only by the procedure like to that provided by sections 33093391 R. S. U. S. for the forfeiture of goods under the customs laws, and with trial by jury. There is no reported case of such proceeding under this section. The seizure cannot be enforced in an equity suit by the United States under section 4. Addyston Pipe & Steel Co. v. United States, 29 C. C. A. 141, 85 Fed. Rep. 271.

It was said in this case by Taft, J., that the only remedy which can be afforded under section 4 is a decree, of injunction.

341. A State is not a "person or corporation" under section 7...... 369 342. Pleadings under section 7 ....

369

369

870

371

345. The Act as a defense in suits by alleged illegal combinations.. 370 346. The Act as a defense in patent litigation 347. Self-incriminating testimony

371

$338. Persons injured may recover threefold damages and attorney's fee.- SEc. 7. 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 respect to the amount in controversy, and shall recover threefold the damages by him sustained, and the costs. of suit, including a reasonable attorney's fee.

§ 339. Private actions under section 7.- This section was construed by the Supreme Court in Montague v. Lowry, supra, affirming the judgment of the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, 115 Fed. Rep. 27, and of the Circuit Court (N. Dist. of Cal.) 106 Fed. 38, for treble damages and attorney's fees in favor of a firm which had endeavored to procure tiles for the purposes of their business from the tile manufacturers, members of the association, who refused to deal with. them because they, the plaintiffs, were not members of the association. Plaintiffs were not eligible to membership in the association, because they did not always carry stock worth $3,000, which was made a condition of eligibility to membership. It was claimed that this provision had not been enforced. the Court said there was nothing to prevent its enforcement at any time, if an application was made by any one who did not fill the condition. The proof showed that by reason of the formation of the association plaintiff's had been injured in their business, because they were unable to procure tiles from the manufacturers at any price or from the dealers at San Francisco at less than the list price which was more than fifty per

But

cent above the price at which members of the association could purchase the same.

In this case the jury found a verdict for $500 and judgment was rendered for treble this amount, and in addition thereto the court allowed $750 for attorney's fees. The trial lasted five days. The Court said that the amount of the attorney's fees was within the discretion of the trial court reasonably exercised, and that the discretion was not abused.

This section was also construed by the Circuit Court of Ap peals for the Sixth Circuit, 127 Fed Rep. 25, in City of Atlanta v. Chattanooga Foundry & Pipe Co. In this case the recovery by a municipal corporation engaged in operating water, steam and lighting plant, from which revenue was derived, was sustained on the ground that it was a business corporation and able to maintain an action for relief under this section for injury to its business by combination or conspiracy.

In the case last cited the Court held that every member of an illegal combination in violation of the Act was liable for damages to the party injured, and it was immaterial that there was no direct contract between plaintiff and defendant. It was also immaterial that the business of the plaintiff was not interstate, provided the transaction by which the purchase was made was interstate.

It was held in Bishop v. American Preservers Co., 105 Fed. Rep. 845, that the Anti-Trust law did not authorize an action against an alleged trust corporation by one who was a party to its organization, and a stockholder thereof, to recover damages resulting from the enforcement by it of the rights given it by the alleged unlawful agreement, and that the bringing of a suit in replevin by the company against the plaintiff was but the exercise of its lawfui right. See also 51 Fed. Rep.

272.

$340. Plaintiff must show injury. The fact of an illegal combination in an industry does not establish a right of private action for damages, unless plaintiff shows injury directly accruing to himself by reason of the illegal combination; but an allegation that plaintiff is in the business affected by the combination, and by reason thereof is unable to make