thereof; and in any case of an agreement for the pooling of freights as aforesaid, each day of its continuance shall be deemed a separate offense.

§ 7. That it shall be unlawful for any common carrier subject to the provisions of this act to enter into any combination, contract, or agreement, expressed or implied, to prevent, by change of time schedule, carriage in different cars, or by other means or devices, the carriage of freights from being continuous from the place of shipment to the place of destination. * * *

[February 4, 1887.]

CASES CONSTRUING STATUTES.

June 4, 1891. October 13, 1890.

United States v. Jellico Mountain Coal and Coke Co. et al. 46 Fed., 432. 43 Fed., 898. Statement.

Owners of Kentucky coal mines and the coal dealers in Nashville, Tennessee, formed a combination whereby all the Nashville dealers should sell coal at the same price, said price to be fixed by the combination; and the mines agreed to sell no coal in Nashville to any person not a member of the combination. The United States brings suit, under the Trust Act of 1890, to enjoin proceedings under this agreement. Opinion on preliminary hearing.

A preliminary injunction was refused, the court saying: "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 final 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."

Opinion on final hearing.

In making the agreement the transportation of the coal from Kentucky to Nashville, Tennessee, was a necessary incident to, and element in, the arrangement, and its execu

OF

tion would have been impossible without it. It was to all intents and purposes commerce between states, and as it is clear that it was a combination in restraint of trade, it falls within the Trust Act.

Defendants are enjoined.

51 Fed., 272.

Bishop v. American Preservers' Co. et al.

June 8, 1892. The Trust Act (26 St. at Large, 209) which forbids combinations in restraint of interstate commerce, and gives a right to sue for damages to any person injured by acts in violation of its provisions, does not authorize suit where the only cause of action is the bringing of two suits which have not been decided.

In re Corning et al.

United States v. Greenhut et al.

51 Fed., 205.

June 11, 1892.

Statement.

An indictment against the prisoners charges that they, prior to the act of July 2, 1890, by lease or purchase acquired some 70 distilleries throughout the several states of the Union, and from them produced 77,000,000 gallons of distillery products, which then constituted of the entire amount of such products in the United States, and that they continued to operate said distilleries on the same extensive scale after the act became a law; that part of these products were shipped to Massachusetts, to be sold there and for transportation to other states, and to be sold by defendants to dealers, under a promise on the part of the defendants that if said dealers should purchase their distillery products exclusively from the defendants, and should sell such products not below certain prices, then defendants would pay said dealers a rebate of five cents a gallon on all their purchases. Defendants are arrested and ask for a writ of habeas corpus. Opinion.

The acts alleged do not constitute a crime. To have committed a crime the defendants must have obligated the vendors of the distilleries not to build others, or to withhold their capital or experience from the business; or they must have required an agreement from the dealers that they would

buy all their liquors of defendants, or that they would not sell below a given price.

Defendants are discharged.1

51 Fed., 213. Statement.

In re Terrell.

United States v. Greenhut et al.

June 28, 1892.

Defendants made an agreement with Massachusetts dealers that if they should purchase all their distilled spirits of defendants they would give such dealers a rebate. The dealers did not bind themselves to buy of no other manufacturer. Suit is brought against the defendants by the United States for violating the Trust Act.

Opinion.

The dealers were entirely free to buy from whom they chose and to sell at any price they pleased. "The statute does not prohibit the offering of special inducements to such purchasers as shall make all their purchases from a single concern, even though those inducements be so favorable as to accomplish their object."

The defendants are released.

52 Fed., 646.

Statement.

United States v. Nelson et al.

District Court, October 10, 1892.

The defendants were separate dealers in lumber in numerous towns and cities in several states.

September 7th, 1892, at Minneapolis, they agreed to, and did, raise the price of lumber 50 cents on a thousand feet in Wisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa, Illinois, and Missouri. indictment is brought against defendants charging these facts.

Opinion.

"Unless the agreement involves an absorption of the entire traffic in lumber, and is entered into for the purpose of obtain

1Several other members of the distilling company were arrested under indictments substantially like the one here considered and they were discharged in the same manner as the defendants in this case. The decisions are found in In re Greene, 52 Fed., 104, and In re Terrell, 51 Fed., 213.

ing the entire control of it with the object of extortion, it is not objectionable to the statute."

A demurrer to the indictment is sustained.

54 Fed., 40. Statement.

Blindell et al. v. Hagan et al.

Circuit Court, February 9, 1893.

The complainants are owners of the steamship Violante, which they are using in the carrying trade between New Orleans and Liverpool. The defendants have combined to prevent complainants from obtaining a crew for the Violante. Complainants seek an injunction founded on the following provision of the Trust Act:

"The several circuit courts of the United States are hereby invested with jurisdiction to prevent and restrain violations of this act; and it shall be the duty of the several district attorneys of the United States to institute proceedings in equity to prevent and restrain such violations." 26 St. at Large, 209.

Opinion.

*

*

The Trust Act is not meant to allow an individual the right to an injunction. An injunction can only be granted when the United States is complainant.1

Injunction is refused under the Trust Act, but is granted on other grounds.

55 Fed., 605.

United States v. Patterson et al.

Circuit Court, February 28, 1893. This case decides as to the sufficiency of an indictment, holding part of it bad and the remainder good. Under the Trust Act of 1890 it is insufficient for an indictment to declare the crime in the words of the statute, but it must state the means whereby it is sought to monopolize the market; and it must state such a purpose to restrain trade as is implied in the common law term "contract in restraint of trade."

1 The same point is decided in the same way in Pidcock v. Harrington et al., 64 Fed., 821, Greer Mills & Co. v. Stroller et al., 77 Fed., 1; Gulf, C. & S. F. Ry. Co. et al. v. Miami S. S. Co., 86 Fed., 407; and in Southern Indiana Exp. Co. v. the United States Exp. Co. et al., 88 Fed., 659.

United States v. Workingmen's Amalgamated Council of New Orleans et al.

54 Fed., 994. Statement.

Circuit Court, March 25, 1893.

In New Orleans a difference had sprung up between the warehousemen and their employees and the principal draymen and their subordinates. With the view and purpose to compel an acquiescence on the part of the employers in the demands of the employed all the members of the labor associations were made by their officers, who had authority under their various charters, to discontinue business, and one of these kinds of business was transporting goods which were being conveyed from state to state, and to and from foreign nations. By the intended effects of the doings of the defendants, goods in the commerce of the country could not be moved. These acts are sought to be enjoined.

Opinion.

If a combination affects interstate commerce, it falls within the Trust Act whether it be a combination of capital or labor.

The said interference with interstate commerce is enjoined.

55 Fed., 149.

Waterhouse et al v. Comer.

Circuit Court, April 8, 1893. In considering an application of the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers the following section of their rules was declared to be in violation of the Trust Act of 1890: "That hereafter when an issue has been sustained by the grand chief and carried into effect by the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers it shall be recognized as a violation of the obligation if a member of the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers who may be employed on a railroad run in connection with, or adjacent to, said road to handle the property belonging to said road or system in any way that may benefit said company with which the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers are at issue until the grievances or issues of difference of any nature or kind have been amicably settled.”