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.
278
PAET XIII.
turer, with many sales agents, as in the Miles Medical Co. case (supra). Furthermore, there was no combination of manufacturers by agreement to appoint a common sales agent.
(7) Unvfed States v. Winslow (227 U. S., 202). Decided February 3, 1913. Opinion by Mr. Justice Holmes.
Opinion on a writ of error to a judgment sustaining a demurrer to the indictment. Three companies engaged in different lines of l)usiness and not competing, but maldng, respectively, 60, 80, 70, and 80 per cent of the lasting machines, welt-sewing machines, heeling machines, and metallic-fastening machines made in the United States organized a new company to which they turned over their several businesses which, as has been stated, had not been competing businesses. The court held that the organization of a new company and the purchase by it of the stock and businesses of the three noncompeting concerns did not constitute a violation of the Sherman Act. The opinion of the court makes plain that if the three businesses which combined had been competing businesses the conclusion of the court would have been different. Mr. Justice Holmes said :
(217) On the face of it the combination was simply an effort after greater efficiency. The business of the several groups that combined, as it existed before the combination, is assumed to have been legal. The machines are patented, making them is a monopoly in any case, the (^xchision of competitors from the use of them is of the wry essence of the right conferred by the patents, Paper Bag Patent Case (210 IJ. S., 405, 429), and it may