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 destroyed-an
injunction will lie at their suit to prevent the doing or con-
tinuing of the wrongful acts, the remedy at law, if any,
even under the statute giving three-fold damages, being in-
adequate and consequential damages, such as loss of trade
and profits and failure of credit and business, not being
ordinarily recoverable at law. Ib.
3-16
16. Court Will Not Lend Its Aid in Enforcing Illegal Contract.—
The court can not lend its aid in any way to a party seek-
ing to realize the fruits of an illegal contract, and, while
this may at times result in relieving a purchaser from pay-
ing for what he has had, public policy demands that the
court deny its aid to carry out illegal contracts without
regard to individual interests or knowledge of the parties.
Continental Wall Paper Co. v. Voight, 212 U. S., 262. 3-513
17. Same-Effect of Refusal.-The refusal of judicial aid to enforce
illegal contracts tends to reduce such transactions.
18. Nature of Relief to be Granted.-Where an existing combina-
tion in corporate form has been adjudged unlawful, as in
violation of the Anti-Trust Act, and to have monopolized
and to be monopolizing a large part of the interstate trade
in a particular commodity it is the duty of the court, under
the power conferred by section 4 of the act to "prevent and
restrain" its violation, not only to enjoin further violation
of the act, but to render its decree effective by dissolving
the illegal combination. U. S. v. du Pont, etc., Co., 188
F., 153.
4-377
19. When Ordinary Jurisdiction of Equity Not Impaired.-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. Ib.
3-17
20. Same. Quare.-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 com-
mission. Ib.
3-17
21. Power to Bring in Non-Resident Defendants.-Where one of the
defendants in a suit, brought by the Government in a
circuit court of the United States under the authority of
§4 of the Anti-Trust Act is within the district, the court,
under the authority of § 5 of that act, can take jurisdic-
tion and order notice to be served upon the nonresident
defendants. Standard Oil Co. v. U. S., 221 U. S., 46.
4-118
22. Courts of Equity-Power to Compel Production of Books and
Papers. A court of equity has power to compel the produc-
tion of books and papers by virtue of its inherent and
general jurisdiction, and this power is not confined to the
parties to the suit, but extends to third persons. U. S. v.
Terminal R. Ass'n, etc., 148 F., 488.
3-39
23.-Will not Review Competency of Evidence Before Grand Jury
on Motion to Quash.-Except in States having statutes on the
subject, courts will not review the evidence received by a
grand jury on a motion to quash, for the purpose of passing
on its competency. U. S. v. Swift, 186 F., 1018
4-76
24. Jurisdiction of Federal Courts.-A suit based on an alleged
violation of Sherman Anti-Trust Act whereby direct and
special injuries are inflicted on and threatened to the com-
plainants is one arising under a law of the United States
of which a Federal court has jurisdiction regardless of the
citizenship of the parties. Mannington v. C. H. V. & T. Ry.
Co., 183 F., 140.
3-835
25. Suit Involving Rights of Stockholders.-Where it is claimed
that one corporation can not under the statute lawfully
own the stock of another a court can not, in a suit to which
such stockholding corporation is not a party, adjudge the
constitution of the board of directors of the corporation
Issuing the stock illegal on the ground that certain of its
stock was held and voted at the corporate election by such
stockholding corporation. Ib.
3-847
26. Acts of Foreign Government.-Where Costa Rica was de facto
sovereign over that part of Panama, including the McCon-
nell concession, at the time plaintiff's plantation and railroad
in such concession was injured by the acts of the Costa
Rican soldiers and officers acting under governmental au-
thority, such acts were immune from investigation or re-
view by the courts of the United States. American Banana
Co. v. United Fruit Co., 166 F., 266.
3-570
27. District in Which Suit Must be Brought.-An action against a
corporation in a Federal court for a common-law tort can
be maintained only in the district of plaintiff's residence or
that in which defendant is incorporated, and such require-
ment can not be avoided by joining in the same complaint
another count stating an entirely separate cause of action
of which the court has jurisdiction nor by stating a joint
cause of action against such defendant and another which
is an inhabitant of the district and may be there sued, the
cause of action being several as well as joint. Ware-
Kramer Tobacco Co. v. American Tobacco Co., 178 F., 120.
28. The question whether a suit in a Federal court is maintainable
in the district where brought, under the statute, may be
raised either by motion to set aside the service of process
or by special demurrer, where a special appearance is made
for that purpose only, and before pleading to the merits;
but the right is waived by filing a general demurrer or
pleading of the merits. Ib.
3-770
29. Congressional Power to Authorize Their Process to Run Outside
Their District. In a case at law or in equity which arises
under the Constitution or laws of the United States, and a
suit by the United States under act July 2, 1890, "to pro-
tect trade and commerce against unlawful restraints and
monopolies " presents such a case, Congress is authorized
by article 3, §§ 1, 2, of the Constitution to confer upon any
national court jurisdiction to summon the proper parties
to the suit to a hearing and decree wherever they reside or
are found within the dominion of the Nation, although be-
yond the limits of the district of the court. U. S. v. Stand-
ard Oil Co., 152 F., 293.
3-178
30. District Where Suit to be Brought-Restriction to Inhabitants
of District Inapplicable Where Jurisdiction Conferred by
Special Acts.-The inhibition of section 1 of the judiciary
acts of 1887 and 1888 (act Mar. 3, 1887, c. 373, 24 Stat.,
552, and act Aug. 13, 1888, c. 866, 25 Stat., 433) that
no
suit shall be brought before either of said courts [the cir-
cuit and district courts] against any person by any original
process or proceeding in any other district than that whereof
he is an inhabitant," is ineffective and inapplicable in in-
stances in which exclusive jurisdiction over particular cases
or classes of cases has been conferred upon the Federal
court by special acts of Congress. Ib.
3-178
31. A case can not, under existing statutes regulating the jurisdic-
tion of the courts of the United States, be removed from a
State court, as one arising under the Constitution or laws of
the United States unless the plaintiff's complaint, bill, or
declaration shows it to be a case of that character.
Ib.
32. While an allegation in a complaint filed in a circuit court of
the United States may confer jurisdiction to determine
whether the case is of the class of which the court may prop-
erly take cognizance for purposes of a final decree on the
merits, if notwithstanding such allegation, the court finds,
at any time, that the case does not really and substantially
involve a dispute or controversy within its jurisdiction then,
by the express command of the act of 1875, its duty is to
proceed no further. And if the suit, as discussed by the
complaint could not have been brought by plaintiff originally
in the circuit court, then, under the act of 1887-88 it
should not have been removed from the State court and
should be remanded.
10870°-S. Doc. 111, 62–1, vol 4- -40
33. A State can not, by a suit in its own name, invoke the original
jurisdiction of a Federal circuit court to restrain and pre-
vent violations by competing interstate railway companies,
of the Anti-Trust Act, because, alone, of the alleged remote
and indirect injury to its proprietary interests arising from
the mere absence of free competition in trade and commerce
as carried on by such carriers within its limits.
Ib.
34. Article IV of the Constitution of the United States only pre-
scribes a rule by which courts, Federal and State, are to be
guided when a question arises if the progress of a pending
suit as to the faith and credit to be given the court to the
public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of a State.
other than that in which the court is sitting. It has nothing
to do with the conduct of individuals or corporations. Ib.
35. Allegation of Amount in Controversy.-It is not essential that a
bill in a Federal court should state the amount or value in
controversy, if it appears to be within the jurisdictiona!
limit, from the allegations of the bill, or otherwise from the
record, or from evidence taken in the case before the hear-
ing of objections to the jurisdiction. Robinson v. Suburban
Brick Co., 127 F., 804.
36. Abatement-Pendency of Action in State Court.-The pendency
of a suit in a State court is not a bar to one on the same
cause of action in a Federal court.
Ib.
37. Production of Documents.-The search and seizure clause of
the fourth amendment was not intended to interfere with
the power of courts to compel the production upon a trial of
documentary evidence through a subpœna duces tecum.
Hale v. Henkel, 201 U. S., 43.
See also SEARCH, and WITNESSES.
38. Orders of a Federal circuit court directing witnesses to answer
the questions put to them and produce written evidence in
their possession on their examination before a special ex-
aminer appointed in a suit brought by the United States
to enjoin an alleged violation of the Anti-Trust Act, is
interlocutory in the principal suit, and therefore not ap-
pealable to the Supreme Court. An appeal does lie, how-
ever, from a judgment of contempt, attempting to enforce
the order. Alexander v. United States, 201 U. S., 117.
2-945
See also Nelson v. United States, 201 U. S., 92 (2-920).
39. Admission of Evidence-Order of Proof.-In an action to recover
damages for an alleged conspiracy in restraint of interstate
commerce, it was within the discretion of the trial court to
admit evidence of acts and declarations of various of the
defendent associations, their officers, committees, members,
and agents, made in the absence of many of the other de-
fendants, before a prima facie case of conspiracy had been
established, and before privity of some of the defendants had
been proven, on condition that such connecting evidence
should be thereafter given. Loder v. Jayne, 142 F., 1010.
2-977
40. Jurisdiction to Restrain and Punish Violations of Anti-Trust
Act. The circuit court have jurisdiction under the Anti-
Trust Act to define injunctions to restrain and punish viola-
tions of that act. U. S. v. Agler, 62 F., 824.
1-294
41. Jurisdiction-Habeas Corpus-Removal of Prisoner.-Where a
prisoner, arrested under warrant based upon an indictment
in a distant State and district, is held pending an applica-
tion to the district court for a warrant of removal for
trial, the circuit court of the district in which he is held
has authority on habeas corpus to examine such indictment
and to release the prisoner if in its judgment the indictment
should be quashed on demurrer. In re Terrell, 51 F., 213.
1-46
42. Habeas Corpus-Removal of Prisoner-Examination of Indict-
ment. It is the right and duty of the circuit court on an
application for habeas corpus for the purpose of releasing
a person held under a warrant of a United States commis-
sioner to await an order of the district judge for his re-
moval to another district to answer an indictment, to ex-
amine the indictment to ascertain whether it charges any
offense against the United States, or whether the offense
comes within the jurisdiction of the court in which the in-
dictment is pending. In re Greene, 52 F., 104.
1-54
43. Jurisdiction-Obstruction of the Mails.-The circuit court had
power to issue its process of injunction upon complaint
which clearly showed an existing obstruction of artificial
highways for the passage of interstate commerce and the
transmission of the mails, not only temporarily existing, but
threatening to continue. In re Debs, 158 U. S., 565. 1-565
44. Same-Violation of Injunction-Contempt.-Such an injunction
having been issued and served upon the defendants, the cir-
cuit court had authority to inquire whether its orders had
been disobeyed, and when it found that they had been dis-
obeyed to proceed under Revised Statutes, section 725, and
to enter the order of punishment complained of.
Ib.
45. Same-Habeas Corpus.-The circuit court having full jurisdic-
tion in the premises, its findings as to the act of disobedi-
ence are not open to review on habeas corpus in this or any
other court.
Ib.
46. The circuit court has power in an action brought by the At-
torney General to enjoin the Northern Securities Company,
a corporation organized to hold the majority of the stock of
|