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.
274
PART XIII.
274; Standard Oil Co. v. United States, 221 U. S., 1; United States v. American Tobacco Co,, 221 U. S., 106. In view of the fact that the conspiracy inflicted npon the public the injuries which tlie Sherman Act is designed to prevent, the court lield it inunaterial that tlie indictment did not allege a specific intent to restrain commerce, sajdng :
(543) * * the conspirators must be held to have intended the necessary and direct consequences of their acts and can not be heard to say the contrary. In other words, by purposely engaging in a conspiracy which necessarily and directly produces the result which the statute is designed to prevent, they are, in legal contemplation, chargeable with intending that result. (Addyston Pipe A Steel Co. v. United States, 175 U. S., 211, 243 ; United States v. Reading Co., 226 U. S., 324, 370.)
(6) Virtue v. Creamery Package Ma)iuf a during Co. and The Owatonna Co. (227 U. S., 8). Decided January 20, 1913. Opinion by Mr. Justice McKenna.
Action for treble damages under section 7 of antitrust act, charging that defendants enterc^d into a conspiracy to destroy ])laintiffs' interstate business by wrongfully prosecuting two suits against them for the infringement of patents, these suits having been brought separately by the defendants, although simultaneously. A jury found a verdict for the defendants. One of the defendants, the Creamery Packages jNJanufacturing Co., had made a contract to purchase, in exchange for its stock, the