Brief for the United States (1914)

Record Details:

Title:
Brief for the United States
Date:
1914
Publisher:
Washington, D.C. : United States. Government Printing Office. Office of the Public Printer
Volume:
Brief for the United States
Leaf #:
000321
Language:
English
Collection:
Books and Government & Law
Format:
Books
Contributor:
Media History Digital Library
Sponsor:
{"Media History Digital Library","Richard Koszarski",Domitor}
Coordinator:
Media History Digital Library
Description:
Date Added:
June 06, 2024
Something wrong or inaccurate about this page? Let us Know!

Thanks for helping us continually improve the quality of the Lantern search engine for all of our users! We have millions of scanned pages, so user reports are incredibly helpful for us to identify places where we can improve and update the metadata.

Please describe the issue below, and click "Submit" to send your comments to our team! If you'd prefer, you can also send us an email to mhdl@commarts.wisc.edu with your comments.




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.

I'Airr xvi. 309 lV\i;i WI. THE GENERAL FILM CO. IS IN AND OF ITSELF A COMBINATION IN RESTRAINT OF TRADE AND A MONOPOLY. ITS BUSINESS MUST BE DIVIDED AMONG SEVERAL SUBSTANTIALLY EQUAL, SEPARATE, DISTINCT. AND INDEPENDENT CORPORATIONS WITH WHOLLY SEPARATE OWNERS AND STOCKHOLDERS. The Su])i'('in(' Court held tliat each of six New Jei'soy corporations, nanicly, T\w American Tobacco Co., princi])al defondaiit, and five so-called accessory corporations, American Cigar Co., American Stogie Co., American Snuff Co., McAndrews & Forbes Co. (licorice monopoly) and Conley Foil Co. (tinfoil monopoly), was an unlawful combination in restraint of trade, an attempt to monopolize, and a monopolization within the first and second sections of the Antitrust Act. (221 U. S., at p. 187.) The business of each of those companies was divided among a number of corporations. Likewise in the Harvester case (f". S. v. IntenHtfioHdJ Harvester Co., decided at St. Paul, August 12, 1914, 214 Fed., 987), the court decreed the disintegration of the business of th(^ principal defendant. The Harvester Co. was a corporation created in 1902 under the laws of New Jersey for the sole purpose of taking over the interstate business of five companies engaged in selling harvesting implements theretofore competing and together controlling 85 to 90 per cent of the total harvesting business in the United States, tlu* vendors receiving in exchange for their