E. Howard Watch & Clock Co., Dueber Watch Case Mfg. Co. v., 55 F., 851 66 F., 637 421 Farmers' Loan & Trust Co. v. Northern Pac. R. Co., 60 F., 803..... 257 Gulf, C. & S. F. Ry. Co. v. Miami S. S. Co., 86 F., 407 . 823 Howard Watch & Clock Co., Dueber Watch Case Mf'g Co. v., 941 Jellico Mountain Coke & Coal Co., U. S. v., 43 F., 898.. 1 Page. Lowenstein v. Evans, 69 F., 908..... 598 Lowry v. Tile, Mantel & Grate Ass'n, 98 F., 817. 995 McNulta, Dennehy v., 86 F., 825 855 Miami S. S. Co., Gulf, C. & S. F. Ry. Co. v., 86 F., 407.. 823 Pidcock v. Harrington, 64 F., 821.. Prescott & A. C. R. Co. v. Atchison, T. & S. F. Co., 377 Strait v. National Harrow Co., 51 F., 819.. 92 F., Standard Distilling & Distributing Co., Block v., 95 F., 978. Southern Ind. Exp. Co. v. United States Exp. Co., 88 F., 659.... 862 992 993 620 52 Terrell, In re, 51 F., 213 Thomas v. Cin., N. O. & T. P. Ry. Co., 62 F., 803..... 46 266 995 80 U. S. v. Coal Dealers' Association of Cal., 85 F., 252.. 749 U. S. v. Debs, 64 F., 724.. 322 In re Debs, 158 U. S., 564 565 U. S. v. Freight Association. See U. S. v. Trans-Missouri Freight Page. 250 258 379 262 311 U. S. v. Jellico Mountain Coke & Coal Co., 43 F., 898. 1 U. S. v. Trans-Missouri Freight Association, 53 F., 440. U. S. v. Workingmen's Amalgamated Council, 54 F., 994.. U. S., Anderson v., 82 F., 998 869 869 77 133 244 80 110 184 742 171 U. S., 604. 967 U. S., Moore v., 85 F., 465.... 815 U. S. Exp. Co., Southern Ind. Exp. Co. v., 88 F., 659.. Workingmen's Amalgamated Council, U. S. v., 54 F., 994 FEDERAL ANTI-TRUST DECISIONS. VOL. 1 1890-1899. [898] UNITED STATES v. JELLICO MOUNTAIN COKE & COAL CO. ET AL.o (Circuit Court, M. D. Tennessee. October 13, 1890.) [43 Fed., 898.] PRELIMINARY INJUNCTIONS-ILLEGAL COMBINATIONS.-Where the ma terial allegations of a bill filed by the United States against various coal companies, under Act Cong. July 2, 1890, to enjoin their combination in restraint of trade, are denied by defendants' affidavits, a preliminary injunction will not be granted, as plaintiff gives no indemnifying bond in case the injunction should be dissolved. In Equity. This case arose on a bill filed by the United States under the act of congress approved July 2, 1890, entitled "An act to protect trade and commerce against unlawful restraints and monopolies." All the coal companies doing business in the city of Nashville, as members of the coal exchange, were made parties defendant. On the preliminary hearing temporary injunction was refused. # W. H. H. Miller, Atty. Gen., Wm. H. Taft, Acting Atty. Gen., and John Ruhm, U. S. Atty. • See also page 9 (46 Fed., 432). Syllabus copyrighted, 1891, by West Publishing Co. 1 Syllabus. G. N. Tillman and W. L. Granbery, for defendants. HAMMOND, J. This is an application for a preliminary injunction only, and it appears to the court better to await the hearing, and determine upon plenary proof of the exact facts those grave questions which have been suggested, than to decide them now upon the bare statements of the bill which are so general in their character, and quite too barren of any averments of specific facts to enable the court to determine whether the general conclusions of fact averred are true, particularly in view of the affidavits of defendants denying some of the most important of them; and in this view it is unnecessary to hear any counter-affidavits. The court is the more inclined to this course since the bill is not that of a private citizen, complaining of an injury to him, but only by the United States [899] on behalf of the public, and in pursuance of a public policy of enforcing a recent act of congress to prevent combinations in restraint of trade and commerce. It is manifest that the act is new, and this a most important application of it. It would more injure the defendants to grant this preliminary injunction if, on the hearing, it should turn out that the case does not fall within the act, than it would injure the public to withhold the injunction until the final hearing; and the more since the United States gives no bond to protect the defendants against that injury, as a private suitor would be compelled to do. When this is the situation of the parties the rule is to refuse the preliminary injunction, and abide the hearing. The court reserves all expression of opinion on the subject-matter of the bill until that time, as the best for all concerned. [721] AMERICAN BISCUIT & MANUF'G CO. v. KLOTZ ET AL. (Circuit Court, E. D. Louisiana. January 8, 1891.) [44 Fed., 721.] RECEIVERS-COMBINATIONS TO RESTRAIN TRADE.-Defendant and his partner sold their bakery business to complainant corporation, receiving payment in its stock, and defendant leased to it the prem |