Gibbs v. Consolidated Gas Co of Baltimore City

Citation9 S.Ct. 553,32 L.Ed. 979,130 U.S. 396
PartiesGIBBS v. CONSOLIDATED GAS CO. OF BALTIMORE CITY
Decision Date15 April 1889
CourtUnited States Supreme Court

Plaintiff in error brought this action in the circuit court of the United States for the district of Maryland against the defendant in error, 'a corporation duly incorporated under the laws of Maryland, for money payable by the defendant to the plaintiff,' as stated in the 'bill of particulars of plaintiff's claim,' 'for services rendered by me at your request in negotiating and consummating an arrangement and settlement of differences between the Consolidated Gas Co. of Balto. City and the Equitable Gas-Light Co. of Balto. City, between July 1, 1884, and November 1, 1884, $50,000;' and a trial was had upon the general issue pleaded, resulting in verdict and judgment for the defendant, May 14, 1885. From the bill of exceptions it appears that——

'At the trial of this case, the incorporation of the defendant being admitted the plaintiff, to maintain the issues upon his part joined, gave in evidence the agreement following between said defendant and the Equitable Gas-Light Company of Baltimore City, a Maryland corporation,—that is to say:

"Agreement. This agreement, made this seventh day of October, eighteen hundred and eighty-four, between the Equitable Gas-Light Company of Baltimore City, a corporation duly organized under the laws of the state of Maryland, party of the first part, and the Consolidated Gas Company of Baltimore City, a corporation duly organized under the laws of the same state, party of the second part. Whereas, the parties hereto conduct the business of making and selling gas in the city of Baltimore, Maryland, and for some time past have been drawn into active competition, resulting in a loss of profits to each company, as well as large expenses and great annoyance; and whereas, each party hereto desires to enter into an arrangement with the other, whereby the business of each may be conducted in a more profitable manner than at present: Now, therefore, in consideration of the premises, and of the mutuality hereof, it is hereby agreed between said parties as follows, viz.:

"1. Gas shall be sold by each company at a rate of one dollar and seventy-five cents per thousand cubic feet, with a rebate of fifteen cents a thousand feet to consumers for payment within seven days from date of rendering bill, unless the rate shall be changed by mutual agreement of the parties hereto in writing; but, in view of the much larger interest of the party of the second part in the subject-matter of this contract, it is agreed that in case of competition on the part of any other gas company the said party of the second part shall have the right at its discretion to reduce the rate at which gas shall be sold by either or both of the parties hereto, and shall have the right at its discretion to fix and change said price at which gas shall be sold by either or both of the parties hereto, from time to time, so long as such competition shall continue: provided, that said price shall not be placed at less than one dollar ($1.00) per thousand feet without the mutual consent of the parties hereto in writing. The introduction of gas from the street main to the inside of the building to be lighted will in all cases be done by the companies, for which the proprietor of the building or the person applying for the supply of gas will be required to pay in advance the sum of eight dollars, ($8.00,) to cover the expenses of tapping main, laying service pipe, setting meter, and its connection to the building line. An extra charge will be made where the building is set back from the building line.

"2. Each party hereto shall deduct from its receipts and retain the sum of one dollar for every thousand feet of gas sold by it as a basis of cost to cover all expenses of the business of each.

"3. All extensions of mains, including services and meters on said extensions, and all enlargement of the capacity of the works necessary to do the increasing business during the continuance of this agreement, shall be made by the Consolidated Gas Company of Baltimore City, at its own cost and expense, whose property such enlargements and extensions shall be, the Equitable Company only being required to provide the meters and services necessary to supply such additional consumers as may be furnished by it under section 5, below.

"4. Division of receipts shall be made as follows, viz.:

"(1) All receipts (over and above the sum of one dollar per thousand feet, allowed as a basis of cost) from gas sold each year upon sales not exceeding the total quantity of gas sold by both of said companies during the year ending October first, eighteen hundred and eighty-four, shall be divided between the parties hereto in the following proportions, viz.: The party of the first part shall receive such a proportion of the same as the amount of gas sold by it during the year ending October first, eighteen hundred and eighty-four, shall bear to the total quantity of gas sold by both of the parties hereto during that period, provided the quantity sold by the party hereto of the first part during said period shall not exceed two hundred and thirteen millions of feet, (213,000,000,) and the party of the second part shall receive all the balance, after deducting the amount to which the party of the first part shall be entitled, as above provided, it being expressly understood and agreed that the basis of participation in said receipts shall be the proportion which the quantity of gas sold by each party from October first, eighteen hundred and eighty-three, to October first, eighteen hundred and eighty-four, bears to the total quantity of gas sold by both parties hereto, and that neither party hereto shall receive more thereof than by such a basis of division it would be entitled to, subject, however, to the foregoing provision that the quantity sold by the party of the first part during the said year ending October first, eighteen hundred and eighty-four, shall not be considered as exceeding two hundred and thirteen millions (213,000,000) of feet as aforesaid.

"(2) All receipts (over and above the said allowance of one dollar per thousand feet as a basis of costs) from gas sold each year upon sales in excess of the said total quantity sold during the year ending October first, eighteen hundred and eighty-four, shall be divided as follows, viz.: The party of the first part shall receive thereout a percentage equal to one-half of the percentage which it will receive as above, and the party of the second part shall receive all the balance of such receipts from said increased sales.

"5. Neither party hereto shall solicit any business belonging to the other, but either party may take such consumers of the other as may voluntarily, without any solicitation, desire to change from one to the other.

"6. All the accounts between the parties hereto hereunder shall be adjusted quarterly on the tenth days of February, May, August, and November of each year for the quarter ending on the last day of December, March, June, and September, and settlements of all balances shall be made within ten days thereafter. The said adjustment of accounts shall be made by an auditor, who shall be chosen by the agreement of both parties hereto.

"7. If any differences or misunderstanding arise hereunder, the matter in dispute shall be referred for decision to three arbiters, whose decision shall be binding upon the parties hereto, so far as in law it may have binding force and effect. Said arbiters shall be chosen as follows, viz.: One shall be chosen by each party hereto, and the third by the two so chosen: provided, that, if either party hereto neglects or refuses for ten days after request, in writing, mailed or personally delivered, to appoint an arbiter, the party making such request shall appoint two arbiters, who shall appoint a third, as above provided.

"8. It is further understood and agreed that if either party hereto shall at any time willfully fail, omit, or neglect to perform, or shall violate any of the covenants herein contained, such party shall be liable to the other for all loss and damage caused to or suffered by it thereby, and that the damages which shall be caused thereby will be equal to the sum of two hundred and fifty thousand dollars, ($250,000,) and that the party who shall so fail, neglect, or omit to perform, or who shall violate any of the covenants herein contained, shall at once thereupon pay to the other party the sum of two hundred and fifty thousand dollars as liquidated damages, and that upon failure to pay the same upon demand suit may be brought therefor, in which the damages so caused or suffered shall be assessed at said sum of two hundred and fifty thousand dollars.

"9. This agreement shall take effect from October fifteenth, eighteen hundred and eighty-four, and shall continue in force for thirty years from its date.'

'[Duly signed and sealed October 7th, 1884.]

'The plaintiff then proved the incorporation of the United Gas Improvement Company, a corporation incorporated by and doing business in the state of Pennsylvania. The plaintiff further proved that at the time of the agreement aforesaid he was the general manager of the said United Gas Improvement Company, and the business of the said corporation was the owning, improving, leasing, and manipulation of gas property throughout the country; said company being the owner of many gas-works in various parts of the Union, and constantly in negotiation for the sale and purchase of that kind of property. He further proved that, by reason of the rivalry in the city of Baltimore between the defendant and the Equitable Gas-Light Company aforesaid, the price of gas had been reduced to a figure below that at which it could be profitably manufactured, and that the company of which the plaintiff was manager, as well as other gas companies throughout the country, had been materially...

To continue reading

Request your trial
198 cases
  • Cascade Timber Co. v. Northern Pac. Ry. Co.
    • United States
    • Washington Supreme Court
    • August 18, 1947
    ... ... to possession to intervene ... In ... City of Tacoma v. Nyman, 154 Wash. 154, 281 P. 484, ... intervention was ... Oliver, 130 ... Ill. 73, 22 N.E. 499; Gibbs v. Consolidated Gas Co. of ... Baltimore, 130 U.S. 396, 9 S.Ct ... ...
  • State v. Duluth Board of Trade
    • United States
    • Minnesota Supreme Court
    • May 7, 1909
    ...91 N. W. 892; National Benefit Co. v. Union Hospital Co., 45 Minn. 272, 47 N. W. 806, 11 L. R. A. 437; Gibbs v. Consolidated Gas Co., 130 U. S. 396, 9 Sup. Ct. 553, 32 L. Ed. 979; Diamond Match Co. v. Roeber, 106 N. Y. 473, 13 N. E. 419, 60 Am. 464. As stated in a recent English text-book: ......
  • United States v. Patterson
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of Ohio
    • June 26, 1912
    ... ... v. Winsor, 20 Wall. 64, ... 22 L.Ed. 315; Gibbs v. Consolidated Gas Co., 130 ... U.S. 396, 409, 9 Sup.Ct. 553, 32 L.Ed ... ...
  • Northern Securities Company v. United States
    • United States
    • U.S. Supreme Court
    • March 14, 1904
    ...and thus bring it within the police power. Oregon Steam Nav. Co. v. Winsor, 20 Wall. 64, 22 L. ed. 315; Gibbs v. Consolidated Gas Co. 130 U. S. 396, 32 L. ed. 979, 9 Sup. Ct. Rep. 553; Hyer v. Richmond Traction Co. 168 U. S. 471, 477, 42 L. ed. 547, 549, 18 Sup. Ct. Rep. 114, 366, Affirming......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
3 books & journal articles
  • Tying meets the new institutional economics: farewell to the chimera of forcing.
    • United States
    • University of Pennsylvania Law Review Vol. 146 No. 1, November 1997
    • November 1, 1997
    ...a prior decision based on a new understanding of the economics of vertical arrangements); see also Gibbs v. Consolidated Gas Co., 130 U.S. 396, 409 (1889) (stating that the definition of "restraint of trade" laid down when the "state of society" was different is not (110) See supra note 32 ......
  • CHAPTER 5 INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY ASSESSMENT AND RISK MANAGEMENT1
    • United States
    • FNREL - Special Institute Strategic Risk Management for Natural Resources Companies (FNREL)
    • Invalid date
    ...see K. Decker, Covenants Not to Compete (1993 & Cum. Supp. 2000). [159] 15 U.S.C.A. §§ 1 -7. [160] See Gibbs v. Consolidated Gas Co., 130 U.S. 396 (1889). [161] Id. [162] For a discussion of state antitrust statutes, see W. Lifland, State Antitrust Law (1984 & Updates). [163] The states in ......
  • A Tale of Two Statutes: Cipro, Edwards, and the Rule of Reason
    • United States
    • California Lawyers Association Competition: Antitrust, UCL and Privacy (CLA) No. 24-2, September 2015
    • Invalid date
    ...156 Cal. 611, 612 (1909).43. Id.44. Id. at 613.45. Id.46. Id. at 614—15.47. Id. at 615.48. Id. (quoting Gibbs v. Consolidated Gas Co, 130 U.S. 396, 409 (1889)).49. Id.50. Id. at 613.51. 172 Cal. 285, 286-87 (1916).52. Id.53. Id. at 287.54. Id. at 288-89.55. 187 Cal. 727, 732, 739 (1922).56.......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT