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.
280
PART XIII.
As it is commonly known the leases of the United Shoe Machinery Co. contain the so-called tying or interlocking restriction, by means of which the users of the lasting machines are required to use the welt-sewing machines, heeling machines, and metallic fastening machines, and vice versa, but the lawfulness of these interlocking restrictions was not involved in the decision of the court. Mr. Justice Holmes said :
(216) It is to be observed that the conditions now inserted in the leases are not alleged to have been contemporaneous with the combination, or to have been contemplated when it was made. The District Court construed the indictment as confined to the combination of February 7, that is, simply to the merger of the companies without regard to the leases subsequently made (195 Fed. Rep., 592, 594) ; and we have no jurisdiction to review this interpretation of the indictment. (United States v. Patten, 226 U. S., 525.) Hence the only question before us is whether that combination taken by itself was within the penalties of the Sherman Act. The validity of the leases or of a combination contemplating them can not be passed upon in this case.
(8) IJnilcd States v. Facijic and Arctic Railway & Navigation Company and Others (228 U. S., 87). Decided Ai)ril 7, 19i:i Opinion by Mr. Justice McKenna.
Decision on a writ of error to a judgment sustaining a denuirrei to the indictment. This charged a coiis])ii'acy in r(\straint of trade to destroy com