We use Optical Character Recognition (OCR) during our scanning and processing workflow to make the content of each page searchable. You can view the automatically generated text below as well as copy and paste individual pieces of text to quote in your own work.
Text recognition is never 100% accurate. Many parts of the scanned page may not be reflected in the OCR text output, including: images, page layout, certain fonts or handwriting.
l'Ai:i Mil.
fords (){' .111 iiilciil lo siippi'c'ss lliat
coiiijx't it i(>!i ;iii(l of a imi pusc io iiihIhI v rcsti'aiii the rrccdoiii ol' pr^Mliict i( 1i-aiiS|)(>rlatioii and sale <d' the arlidc at lidcwatcr markets.
Tlic case falls well within not (MiIv tli(i Sfdiuhird Oil and ToIhicco Cases (221 U. S., 1, !()()), but is of such an nni'casouahlc charactor as to he within the authority of a loii^? Hue of cases decided hy this court. Auiouj:^ them we may cite: Northon Srcvritifs Co. V. United States (193 U. S„ 197), Swift Co. V. United States (196 U. S., 375), Natioual Cotton Oil Co. v. Te.ras (197 U. S., 115), U)iit('(l States V. St. Louis Terminal Association (224 U. S., 383), and the recent case of United States v. Union Pacific Railfrau, ante (p. 61).
AVe are thus led to the coiichision that the defendants did combine for two distinct purposes,— first, by and through the instrumentality of the Temple Iron Company, with the object of preventing the construction of an independent and competing line of railway into the anthracite region; and, second, by and through the instrumentality of the 65 per cent, contracts with the purpose and design of controlling the sale of the independent output at tidewater.
(5) United States v. Patten (226 U. S., 525). Decided January 6, 1913. Opinion by Mr. Justice Tan Devanter.
A criminal prosecution in which the Government sued out a writ of error, the circuit court having sustained a dennirrer to the indictment.