Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

306

Page.

250 258 379

E. C. Knight Co., U. 8. v., 60 F.,

60 F., 934

156 U. 8., 1 E. Howard Watch & Clock Co., Dueber Watch Case Mfg. Co. v.,

851

66 F., 637 Elliott, U. S. v., 62 F., 801

27 Evang v. Lowenstein, 69 F.,

908

55 F.,

178 421 262 311 598

64 F.,

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

257

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. & 8. F. Ry. Co. v. Miami S. S. Co., 86 F., 407

301 54 30 620 823

83 F.,

Hagan, Blindell v., 54 F., 40.

56 F., 696... Harrington, Pidcock v., 64 F., 821. Hench, National Harrow Co.

V., 76 F., 667

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., 851
66 F., 637

106 182 733 610 742 746 725 748 941

178 421

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.

33 565 322 301 54 46

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..

1

9 615 869 869

Klotz, American Biscuit & Manf'g Co. v., 44 F., 721.
Knight Co., U. 8. v., 60 F., 306....

934.
156 U.S.,

1.

60 F.,

2 250 258 379

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

Page.

598
995

855

McNulta, Dennehy v., 86 F., 825.
Miami S. S. Co., Gulf, C. & S. F. Ry. Co. v., 86 F., 407..
Moore u. U. S., 85 F., 465

823

815

[blocks in formation]

59 F.,

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

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.,

73 F., 438......

213..(note).

133
244
844
377

84 F.,

604
604

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

74 F., 236.

130
609

Shingle Trust. See Gibbs v. McNuity.
Southern Ind. Exp. Co. v. United States Exp. Co., 88 F., 659.......

92 F., 1022.
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..

862
992
993
620
52

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. 8. v., 53 F., 440..

58.
166 U. S., 290.

46
266
995

80
186
648

58 F.,

85 F.,

0. 8. v. Addyston Pipe & Steel Co., 78 F., 712....

271...

175 U. S., 211.
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.

631
772
1009
294
449
749
322
565

Page.

250
258
379
262
311

64 F.,

84 F.,

46 F.,

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

60 F., 934...

156 U.S., 1...
U. S. v. Elliott, 62 F., 801

27
U. S. v. Freight Association. See U. 8. v. Trans-Missouri Freight

Association.
U. S. v. Greenbut, 50 F., 469
U. S. v. Hopkins, 82 F., 529

1018.

171 U.S., 578.
U. S. v. Jellico Mountain Coke & Coal Co., 43 F., 898..

432.
U. S. v. Joint Traffic Association, 76 F., 895

89 F., 1020

171 U. S., 505
U. S. v. Nelson, 52 F., 646..
U. S. v. Patterson, 55 F., 605

59 F.. 280
U. S. v. Trans-Missouri Freight Association, 53 F., 440..

58..

166 U. S., 290..
U. S. v. Workingmen's Amalgamated Council, 54 F., 994.

85.
U. S., Anderson v., 82 F.,

998

30
725
748
941

1

9
615
869
869

77
133
244

80
186
648
110
184
742
967
815
862
992

58 F.,

57 F.,

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.

671.
Workingmen's Amalgamated Council, U. S. v., 54 F., 994

57 F., 85

86 F.,

119
608
850
110
184

FEDERAL
ANTI-TRUST DECISIONS.

VOL. 1

1890-1899.

1898) UNITED STATES v. JELLICO MOUNTAIN

COKE & COAL CO. ET AL.:

(Circuit Court, M. D. Tennessee. October 13, 1890.)

[43 Fed., 898.]

PRELIMINARY INJUNCTIONS—ILLEGAL COMBINATION8.—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).
o 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 & MANUFG 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 »