Continental Wall Paper Co. v. Lewis Voight & Sons Co.
Decision Date | 05 January 1906 |
Docket Number | 1,509. |
Citation | 148 F. 939 |
Parties | CONTINENTAL WALL PAPER CO. v. LEWIS VOIGHT & SONS CO. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit |
This is an action to recover a balance of $57,762.10, due on account for wall paper sold and delivered to defendants. The case turned upon the sufficiency of the third defense submitted by the answer to the petition of the plaintiff. To this defense the plaintiff demurred. This demurrer was overruled. The plaintiff declined to plead further, whereupon judgment was rendered for the defendants, dismissing the petition, and taxing the plaintiff with costs. The defense so held to be sufficient was in substance: First. That the plaintiff is a member of an illegal combination among the manufacturers of wall paper, formed for the purpose of enhancing prices stifling competition, and restraining freedom of commerce between the states and with foreign nations, being such a combination or trust as is forbidden by the anti-trust act of 1890 (Act July 2, 1890, c. 647, 26 Stat. 209 (U.S. Comp. St 1901, p. 3200)) and by the laws of Ohio. Second. That the defendants were compelled to become parties to the illegal combination, and that the contract upon which this suit depends for price and terms of sale constitutes one of the agreements which go to make up the illegal combination represented by the Continental Wall Paper Company. The answer, embodying the defense here involved, in substance avers: That the National Paper Company, a corporation owning or controlling a large number of wall paper factories situated within the states of New York, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and Massachusetts, together with a large number of independent firms and corporations engaged in the same manufacture, combined or conspired together for the purpose of controlling the wall paper production in this country by suppressing competition among themselves, and enhancing the price of that article to jobbers, wholesalers, retailers, and consumers. That for this purpose and this end, and to better cover this scheme, they caused the organization under the laws of New York of a corporation known as the Continental Wall Paper Company, with a capital stock of $200,000, divided into 16,000 shares, the shares to be divided among the conspiring firms and corporations in proportion to the production of each factory during the year preceding July, 1898. That the scheme and agreement was that the National Wall Paper Company, as representative of a large number of corporations dominated by it, should select three directors, the other firms and corporations three more, and that the six directors so selected should select a seventh, and the seven directors should direct the combination through the corporate name of the Continental Wall Paper Company. That the plan was that each of the combining concerns should enter into a contract styling themselves 'vendors,' with the said company. These contracts to be signed by the several corporations and firms entering into this combination were identical in terms, and were in the following words and figures:
either of said cities out of the proceeds receivable for such goods. Memorandum invoices shall be supplied to the customer and to the company immediately upon the shipment and delivery of such goods, said invoices specifying quantities and road prices.
To continue reading
Request your trial-
United States v. International Harvester Co.
... ... restraint of trade. See Continental Wall Paper Co. v ... Voight & Sons Co., 212 ... ...
-
John D. Park & Sons Co. v. Hartman
... ... cited American Strawboard Co. v. Haldeman Paper Co., ... 83 F. 619, 27 C.C.A. 634, and Hitchcock v ... Navigation Co. v. Winsor, 20 Wall. (U.S.) 64, 22 ... L.Ed. 315; Dunlop v. Gregory, 10 N.Y ... In Continental Wall Paper Co. v. Voight & Sons Co ... (C.C.A.) 148 F ... ...
-
American Refining Co. v. Gasoline Products Co.
...out. It may be found, however, by reference to the opinion of the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Sixth District, reported in 148 F. 939, 19 L. R. A. (N. S.) 143, and also in the report of the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in 212 U. S. 227, 29 S. Ct. 280, 53 L. Ed. 486......
-
Gibbs v. Buck
...8 Cf., Continental Wall Paper Co. v. Louis Voight & Sons Co., 212 U.S. 227, 262, 29 S.Ct. 280, 292, 53 L.Ed. 486, affirming, 6 Cir., 148 F. 939, 19 L.R.A., N.S., 143; Gibbs v. Consolidated Gas Co., 130 U.S. 396, 412, 9 S.Ct. 553, 558, 32 L.Ed. 979; McConnell v. Camors-McConnell Co., 5 Cir.,......