Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

306

E. C. Knight Co., U. S. v., 60 F.,
60 F., 934

156 U. S., 1

E. Howard Watch & Clock Co., Dueber Watch Case Mfg. Co. v.,

Elliott, U. S. v.,

62 F., 801 64 F., 27

Evans v. Lowenstein, 69 F., 908

Farmers' Loan & Trust Co. v. Northern Pac. R. Co., 60 F., 803.....

Grand Jury, In re, 62 F., 840....

Greene, In re, 52 F., 104

Greenhut, U. S. v., 50 F., 469.

Greer, Mills & Co. v. Stoller, 77 F., 1

Gulf, C. & S. F. Ry. Co. v. Miami S. S. Co., 86 F., 407

[blocks in formation]

55 F., 851

66 F.,

637

76 F., 667 83 F., 36

84 F., 326

Hopkins, U. S. v., 82 F., 529

84 F., 1018

171 U. S., 578.. Howard Watch & Clock Co., Dueber Watch Case Mf'g Co. v.,

55

F., 66 F.,

In re Corning, 51 F., 205...

In re Debs, petitioner, 158 U. S., 564.

U. S. v. Debs, 64 F., 724.....

In re Grand Jury, 62 F., 840

In re Greene, 52 F., 104....
In re Terrell, 51 F., 213

851

637

Jellico Mountain Coke & Coal Co., U. S. v., 43 F., 898..

46 F., 432.

Joint Traffic Association, U. S. v., 76 F., 895.

89 F., 1020...
171 U. S.,

505

Klotz, American Biscuit & Manf'g Co. v., 44 F., 721.

Knight Co., U. S. v., 60 F., 306....

60 F., 934..
156 U. S., 1.

Page.

250

258

379

178

421

262

311

598

257

301

54

30

620

823

106

182

733

610

742

746

725

748

941

178

421

33

565

322

301

54

46

1

9

615

869

869

2

250

258

379

Lowenstein v. Evans, 69 F., 908....
Lowry v. Tile, Mantel & Grate Ass'n, 98 F., 817.

McNulta, Dennehy v., 86 F., 825...

Miami S. S. Co., Gulf, C. & S. F. Ry. Co. v., 86 F., 407....

Moore v. U. S., 85 F., 465.

National Harrow Co. v. Hench, 76 F., 667..
36...

83 F.,
84 F., 226..
National Harrow Co. v. Quick, 67 F., 130.
74 F., 443..
National Harrow Co., Strait v., 51 F., 819
Oakes, Arthur v.,

63 F., 310

Patterson, U. S. v., 55 F., 605....
59 F., 280.

Peurrung, Carter-Crume Co. v., 86 F., 439.
Pidcock v. Harrington, 64 F., 821..

Prescott & A. C. R. Co. v. Atchison, T. & S. F. Co.,

Quick, National Harrow Co. v., 67 F., 130..
236.

74 F.,

73 F., 438........
84 F., 213..(note).

Shingle Trust. See Gibbs v. McNulty.
Southern Ind. Exp. Co. v. United States Exp. Co., 88 F.,

Standard Distilling & Distributing Co., Block v., 95 F., 978..
Stoller, Greer, Mills & Co. v., 77 F., 1.............

Strait v. National Harrow Co., 51 F., 819.

Terrell, In re, 51 F., 213

Thomas v. Cin., N. O. & T. P. Ry. Co., 62 F., 803...
Tile, Mantel & Grate Ass'n, Lowry v., 98 F., 817..
Trans-Missouri Freight Ass'n, U. S. v., 53 F., 440..
58 F.,
58..
166 U. S.,

290..

U. S. v. Addyston Pipe & Steel Co., 78 F.,

85 F.,

175 U. S., 211

92 F., 1022..

712....
271....

659......

U. S. v. Agler, 62 F., 824.

U. S. v. Cassidy, 67 F., 698.

U. S. v. Coal Dealers' Association of Cal., 85 F., 252.

U. S. v. Debs, 64 F., 724....

In re Debs, 158 U. S., 564.

Page.

598

995

855

823

815

610

742

746

443

608

52

310

133

244

844

377

604

604

130

609

862

992

993

620

52

46

266

995

80

186

648

631

772

1009

294

449

749

322

565

U. S. v. E. C. Knight Co., 60 F., 306..

60 F., 934..

156 U. S., 1..

U. S. v. Elliott, 62 F., 801

64 F., 27

U. S. v. Freight Association. See U. S. v. Trans-Missouri Freight
Association.

U. S. v. Greenhut, 50 F., 469

U. S. v. Hopkins, 82 F., 529

84 F., 1018.

171 U. S., 578.....

U. S. v. Jellico Mountain Coke & Coal Co., 43 F., 898..

46 F.,

432.

[blocks in formation]

U. S. v. Trans-Missouri Freight Association, 53 F., 440..

58 F., 58..

166 U. S., 290....

U. S. v. Workingmen's Amalgamated Council, 54 F., 994..
57 F.,
85.

U. S., Anderson v., 82 F., 998

171 U. S., 604.
U. S., Moore v., 85 F., 465..

U. S. Exp. Co., Southern Ind. Exp. Co. v., 88 F., 659.
92 F. 1022

Waterhouse v. Comer, 55 F., 149....
Wisewall, The Charles E., 74 F., 802.
86 F.,
671.
Workingmen's Amalgamated Council, U. S. v., 54 F., 994
57 F., 85

Page.

250

258

379

262

311

30

725

748

941

1

9

615

869

869

77

133

244

80

186

648

110

184

742

967

815

862

992

119

608

850

110

184

FEDERAL

ANTI-TRUST DECISIONS.

VOL. 1

1890-1899.

[898] UNITED STATES v. JELLICO MOUNTAIN COKE & COAL CO. ET AL.

(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

« AnteriorContinuar »