Petition for writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit and brief in support thereof (1916)

Record Details:

Title:
Petition for writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit and brief in support thereof
Date:
1916
Publisher:
New York : Press of Fremont Payne
Volume:
Petition for writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit and brief in support thereof
Leaf #:
00027
Language:
English
Collection:
Government & Law and Books
Format:
Books
Contributor:
Media History Digital Library
Sponsor:
Media History Digital Library
Coordinator:
Media History Digital Library
Description:
Date Added:
December 14, 2023
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.

21 Exhibit B. 61 62 Dyor in his opinion in United iStates vs. United Slioc Machinery Co., 227 Fed., 507, is as follows: "Where the concern makino these contracts is already great and powerful, such as the United Shoe Machinery Company, the American Tobacco Company, and the General Film Company, the exclusive or 'tying' contract made with local dealers becomes one of the greatest agencies and instrumentalities of monopoly ever devised by the brain of man. It completely shuts out competitors, not only from trade in which they are engaged already, but from the opportunities to build up trade in any community where these great and pow^erful conditions are appearing under this system and practice." Judge Sessions has held in the case of Elliott Machine Co. vs. Center, 227 Fed., 126, that this act applies to contracts made before the passage of the act, and w^e think his opinion justified by decisions of the Supreme Court on which he relied. Louisville d Nashville Railroad Co. vs. Mottley, 219 U. 63 S., 167; Armour Packing Co. vs. United States, 209 U. S., 56; Philadelphia, Baltimore cG Washington R. R. vs. Schubert, 221 U. S., 603. In the case of United States vs. United Shoe Machinery Company, 227 Fed., 507, Judge Dyer reached the same conclusion in regard to the Clayton Act. Inasimuch as the contract with the Precision Machine Company involved and restrained interstate commerce, it makes no difference that the particular act of infringement occurred wdthin the State