« 이전계속 »
5. Right of Action for Damages.-A contract or combination in re
straint of interstate commerce, prohibited by the Anti-Trust Act, is not merely illegal in the sense that it is not enforceable, but is per se unlawful, and one who is harmed in his business or property by such a contract or combination has suffered a legal injury, within the meaning of section 7 of the act, and is by such section given a right of action there for. Wheeler-Stenzel Co. v. Natl Window Glass Jobbers' Ass'n, 152 F., 847.
3—222 6. Private Suits for Damages.—Under the express terms of the
Anti-Trust Act, one injured in business or property by another through a combination or conspiracy to restrain or monopolize interstate trade may sue for his damage. WareKramer Tobacco Co. v. American Tobacco Co., 180 F., 165.
3—787 7. Liability to Private Citizen.-By violating a criminal or penal
statute one does not render himself liable to a private citizen unless the unlawful conduct is the proximate cause of, or results in, some special injury to such citizen's business or property. Ware-Kramer Tobacco Co. V. American Tobacco Co., 180 F., 165.
3—786 8. When Private Party Entitled to Injunctive Relief.-A private
party, who has sustained special injury by a violation of the Federal Anti-Trust Act, may sue in a Federal Court for injunction under the general equity jurisdiction of the court, where, by reason of diversity of citizenship of the parties, the court has jurisdiction of the suit. Bigelow v. Calumet & Hecla Mining Co., 155 F., 877.
3-305 9. For Securing Stock, with Voting Power, as Pledge for Loan, and
not then Engaging in Business.-A complaint to recover damages under the Federal Anti-Trust Act charged that defendants combined and conspired to prevent plaintiff from engaging in business and in interstate commerce, and induced S., who was a majority stockholder in plaintiff corporation, to accept a loan from defendant company and pledge as security a majority of plaintiff's capital stock with the absolute voting power; that defendant used such power to elect directors favorable to carrying out the object of the conspiracy, which defendant did by voting that plaintiff should not engage in business—the complaint stated a conspiracy in restraint of interstate trade and commerce in violation of the act. Penna. Sugar Ref. Co. v. American Sugar Ref. Co., 166 F., 261.
3-562 10. For Conspiring to Ruin Competitor Through Corporations Se
cretly Controlled.-A petition to recover three-fold damages for injury to plaintiff's business in interstate and foreign commerce, under the Anti-Trust Act, states a cause of action, where it alleges that plaintiff was a manufacturer of tobacco which it sold in interstate and foreign commerce, and facts showing that defendants conspired to render its business unprofitable and ruin and destroy the same through competing corporations, which they secretly controlled, by enticing away its workmen, by compelling it to pay more than the normal price for leaf tobacco, and to adopt unnecessary and expensive means to sell its products, and that such conspiracy was carried out to the damage of plaintiff in a sum stated; such acts constituting both a conspiracy to restrain interstate commerce and an attempt to monopolize the same, in violation of sections 1 and 2 of the act. People's
Tobacco Co. v. American Tobacco Co., 170 F., 408. 3-678 11. For Combining to Increase Price of Coal and Cost of Transporta
tion.-A complaint in an action to recover treble damages under Sherman Anti-Trust Act, which alleges a combination and conspiracy between defendant and other interstate railroad companies to restrain and monopolize interstate commerce in anthracite coal in violation of sections 1 and 2 of the act, which, as alleged, was carried into effect (1) by increasing the price of coal at the mines, through ownership by the conspirators of the coal companies, and (2) by increasing the charge for transportation of coal to New York, so that the 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 carrying 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 Anti-Trust Act.
Meeker v. Lehigh Valley R. R. Co., 183 F., 551. 3-973 12. No Right of Action for Preventing the Embarking in Busi
ness.—The Sherman Anti-Trust Act, 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 Be ana Co. v. United Fruit Co., 160 F., 188.
3–378 13. 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 Act prohibiting combinations, monopolies, etc. Ib
3-379 14. 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 Act, prohibiting combinations and monopolies, so as to entitle plaintiff to recover damages on that ground alone. Ib.
3-379 15. Immaterial Whether Restraint be Reasonable or Unreason
able.-In an action to recover treble damages caused by an unlawful combination in restraint of foreign commerce, in violation of the Federal anti-trust statute, 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. 8. v. Standard Oil Co., 221 U. S., 1.)
3-551 16. Same-Where a combination in restraint of foreign commerce,
in violation of the Federal Anti-Trust Act, was put in operation in the United States and affected her foreign commerce, it was not material to a suit by a person injured thereby that it was formed in a foreign country. Ib.
3-551 17. 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 Federal Anti-Trust Act, 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
2. By stockholders.
18. Action by Stockholder for Injury to Corporation.—The declara.
tion alleged that the T. Telegraph Co., in which plaintiff was a stockholder, was organized to operate an independent system throughout the United States, after which the defendant company secured control of the T. Co. by the purchase of its stock, to prevent competition in interstate telephone traffic, which it had planned to carry on. Defendant since so managed the T. Co. as not to develop its business, but to prevent it from doing business, and suppressed competition, until the T. Co. was forced into the hands of a receiver. By such control defendant had monopolized interstate telephone commerce, and thereby rendered worthless plaintiff's stock in the T. Co., which prior thereto had been worth $15 a share. On demurrer, held, an injury to the corporation, and not to the stockholders of the T. Co., and that plaintiff could not therefore sue in his own name to recover treble damages under the Sherman Anti-Trust Act, giving a right to recover holder and supporting affidavits held to make a showing which entitled him to a preliminary injunction to restrain
threefold damages to 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 such act. Ames v. American Tel. & Tel. Co., 166 F., 822.
34588 19. 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 20. Injury to Corporation-Right of Stockholders to sue for Dam
ages.—The Sherman Anti-Trust Act, 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 three-fold 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 bank
ruptcy. Loeb v. Eastman Kodak Co., 183 F., 709. 3—982 21. 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. Callie met & Hecla Mining Co., 155 F., 879.
8—503 22. 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 28. Same-Preliminary Injunction-Grounds—The bill of a stockdefendant from voting stock to change the officers and management of the corporation pending a hearing on the merits. Ib.
3-312 3. By parties to the combination.
24. Members of the Kansas City Live Stock Exchange can not en
join the board of directors of that exchange, under the AntiTrust Law, from enforcing against them certain by-laws of the association claimed to be illegal and in violation of
that act. Greer, Mills & Co. v. Stoller, 77 F., 1. 14620 25. Where a member of a voluntary association has been suspended
by the directors for nonpayment of a fine for violation of the by-laws, his action to be restored to the privileges of membership is founded upon the contract between himself and the association, which he must either accept in its entirety or repudiate. He does not occupy the position of a stranger injured by the acts of cotrespassers.
Іь. 26. May Maintain Action to Set Aside Unlawful Transfer of Prop
erty.-A minority stockholder in a corporation may maintain a suit in equity in behalf of himself and all other stockholders similarly situated to set aside an alleged unlawful transfer of the property of the corporation in pursuance of a conspiracy between its officers and the transferee in restraint of trade and commerce, where it is alleged that the corporation, on demand, has refused to bring such suit. Metcalf v. Amer. School-Furniture Co., 108 F., 909.
2—75 27. Same-Multifariousness.-A bill for such relief which also seeks
the recovery of treble damages under the Anti-Trust Act is multifarious, since such damages are recoverable only in an action at law by the plaintiff as an individual, and not as a stockholder, while the equitable relief prayed for is in behalf of the corporation, and, if granted, would inure to the benefit of all the stockholders. 16.
2475 28. No Right of Action Against Trust to Recover Damages.—Section
7 of the Anti-Trust Act, giving to any person injured by any other person or corporation by reason of anything forbidden in the act the right to recover treble damages, does not authorize an action against an alleged trust corporation, by one who was a party to its organization and a stockholder therein, to recover damages resulting from the enforcement by defendant of rights given it by the alleged unlawful agreement. Bishop v. Amer. Preservers Co., 105 F., 845.
2-51 29. Iember of a Combination in Violation of Anti-Trust Law May
Maintain Suit to Enjoin Infringement of Patent Owned by Complainant.-That a complainant is a member of a combination in violation of the Anti-Trust Law does not give third persons the right to infringe a patent of which complainant is owner nor preclude complainant from maintain