페이지 이미지
PDF
ePub
[ocr errors]

Vol. Pagė. Wells & Richardson Co. o. Abraham, 146 F., 190..

8—107, 244. Welton v. Missouri, 91 U. 8., 275..

1–739, 960; 2-515;

8-163. 280.

1-1023. W. H. Thomas & Son o. Barnett, 135 F., 172, 176..

3-393. Werckmeister v. American Pithographic Co., 134 F., 321..

3-239. Western Union Tel. Co. v. Ann Arbor R. R. Co., 178 U. S., 239.

2-548. 243.

2-555. Western Un. Tel. Co. 0. Amer. Un. Tel. Co., 65 Ga., 160..

1-202, 206, 688,724. Western Un. Tel. Co. 0. James, 162 U. S., 650, 655.

1-1027. Western Union Tel. Co. v. Mayer, 28 Ohio St., 521.

8-861. Western Un. Tel. Co. v. Penn. R. R. Co., 195 U. S., 540, 547.

2-707. 120 F., 981

2-707. 123 F., 33, 36..

2-620, 707. Western Union Tel. Co. o. Union Pacific R. R. Co., 3 F., 423, 721. 3-284. West Virginia Transp. Co. o. Ohio R. Pipe L. Co., 22 W. Va., 600. 1--222, 688,724, 799.

625....... 1--206. West Va. Transp. Co. o. Standard Oil Co., 50 West Va., 611..

3-98. Western Woodenware Ass'n v. Starkey, 47 N. W., 604.

3-132. Weston o. Ives, 97 N. Y., 222-228.

1-630. Wetmore v. Mellinger, 64 Iowa....

1-51. Wheeler-Stenzell Co. v. Nat'l Window Glass Jobbers’ Ass'n, 152 F., 864.. 3–768. Whipple v. Cumberland Cotton Mfg. Co., 3 Story, 84...

2--972. White v. Brownell, 2 Daly, 329, 337, 342,350; 3 App. Prac. (N. S.), 318. 1-630. White o. Parkin, 12 East, 578.

2-311, White v. Toledo, etc., Co., 79 F., 134..

4259. Whitehead & Hoag Co. v. O'Callahan, 139 F., 243.

2-943. Whiteside v. Haselton, 110 U. S., 296.

1-665; 2–316.

2-79. Whitney v. Fairbanks, 54 F., 985..

1-785. Whitney u. Slayton, 40 Me., 224. Whittaker o. Howe, 3 Beav., 383.

1---75, 199, 205, 785,

788. White-Smith Music Pub. Co. v. Apollo Co., 209 U.S., 1.

3-677. White Star Line u. Line of Steamers, etc., 141 Mich., 604.

439. Whitwell o. Continental Tobacco Co., 125 F., 454.

2-286, 1015, 1019; 8-252, 545, 605, 768,

800. 462.

3-612,717, 734. Wickens v. Evans, 3 Youngs & J., 318.

1--205, 789. Wickwire Steel Co. v. N. Y. Cent. etc., R. Co., 181 F., 316..

3-973. Wiggins Ferry Co. o. Chicago & A. R. Co., 73 Mo., 389..

1-205, 208. Wight o. U. 8., 167 U, S., 516..

2-1025. Wilbur v. How., 8 Johns., 444.

1-803 Williams o. Bankhead, 19 Wall., 563.

8-847. Williams o. Fears, 179 U. S., 270.

2-146. Williamson v. Beardsley, 137 F., 467, 469.

3-393. Williamson v. U. S., 207 U. S., 425.

4-68. Wilson o. Blair, 119 U. S., 387.

2--316. Wilson v. McNamee, 102 U. 8., 572.

1-847. Wilson o. Rousseau, 4 How., 645, 674.

2-186. 646.

2-796. Wilson v. State, 70 Miss., 595..

3-409. Wilst v. Traction Co., 200 Pa., 149.

3-80. Windsor o. McVeigh, 93 U. 8., 274, 282, 283..

1-340 Wisconsin v. Pelican Ins. Co., 127 U. 8., 265.

2-14. Wiswall, The Charles E., 85 F., F., 674..

3-22. Wood v. Greenwood Hardware Co., 75 8. C., 383.

8-458. Woodruff v. Berry, 40 Ark., 251, 252,

1-202, 803. Woodward v. Alston, 12 Heisk., 581

2--308. Wooton o. Hinkle, 20 Mo., 290.

1-803 Worden o. Searls, 121 U. 8., 28.

4839.

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[blocks in formation]

Zabriskio v. Cleveland, C. & C. Ry. Co., 23 How., 381...

8–599.

FEDERAL
ANTI-TRUST DECISIONS.

VOL. 4.

1910–1912.

Syllabus.

[373] DR. MILES MEDICAL COMPANY, v. JOHN D.

PARK & SONS COMPANY.

[ocr errors]

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH

CIRCUIT.

No. 72. Argued January 4, 5, 1911.-Decided April 3, 1911.

[220 U. S., 373.]

An actionable wrong is committed by one who maliciously interferes

with a contract between two parties and induces one of them to break the contract to the injury of the other, and in the absence of an adequate remedy at law equitable relief will be granted; but held, in this case, that plaintiffs were not entitled to relief as the

contract under which they claimed was invalid. A system of contracts between manufacturers and wholesale and

retail merchants by which the manufacturers attempt to control not merely the prices at which its agents may sell its products, but the prices for all sales by all dealers at wholesale or retail whether purchasers or sub-purchasers, eliminating all competition and fixing the amount which the consumer shall pay, amounts to

& For opinion of Circuit Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit (164 Fed. Rep., 803), see vol. 3, p. 470.

Syllabus and statements of arguments copyrighted 1911, by The Banks Law Publishing Company.

1

Statement of the Case.

restraint of trade and is invalid both at common law, and, so far as it affects interstate commerce, under the Sherman Anti-Trust Act of July 2, 1890; and so held as to the contracts involved in this

case. Such agreements are not excepted from the general rule and rendered

valid because they relate to proprietary medicines manufactured under a secret process but not under letters patent; nor is a manufacturer entitled to control prices on all sales of his own products

in restraint of trade. The rights enjoyed by a patentee are derived from statutory grant

under authority conferred by the Constitution, and are the reward received in exchange for advantages derived by the public after the period of protection has expired; and the rights of one not disclosing his secret process so as to secure a patent are outside of the policy of the patent laws, and must be determined by the legal

principles applicable to the ownership of such process. The protection of an unpatented process of manufacture does not

necessarily apply to the sale of articles manufactured under the

process. A manufacturer of unpatented proprietary medicines stands on the

same footing as to right to control the sale of his product as the manufacturers of other articles, and the fact that the article may [374] have curative properties does not justify restrictions which

are unlawful as to articles designed for other purposes. A manufacturer of unpatented articles cannot, by rule or notice, in

absence of statutory right, fix prices for future sales, even though the restriction be known to purchasers. Whatever rights the manufacturer may have in that respect must be by agreements that are

lawful. Although the earlier common-law doctrine in regard to restraint of

trade has been substantially modified, the public interest is still the first consideration; to sustain the restraint it must be reasonable as to the public and parties and limited to what is reasonably necessary, under the circumstances, for the covenantee; otherwise

restraints are void as against public policy. Agreements or combinations between dealers, having for their sole

purpose the destruction of competition and fixing of prices, are injurious to the public interest and void ; nor are they saved by advantages which the participants expect to derive from the enhanced

price to the consumer. 164 Fed. Rep. 803, affirmed.

This is a writ of certiorari to review a judgment of the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit which affirmed a judgment of the Circuit Court dismissing, on de

« 이전계속 »