American Banana Co. v. United Fruit Co.
| Decision Date | 04 March 1908 |
| Parties | AMERICAN BANANA CO. v. UNITED FRUIT CO. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York |
Wheeler Cortis & Haight, Everett P. Wheeler, and Horace E. Deming for plaintiff.
Strong & Cadwalader, Moorfield Storey, and Henry W. Taft, for defendant.
For the purposes of this motion it will be assumed that the allegations of the complaint show the following facts to be either well pleaded or capable of judicial cognizance: In June, 1904, there existed in the United States a combination in restraint of trade or commerce in bananas with foreign nations, and defendant was an active party in and to such combination. At the same time defendant was either monopolizing or attempting to monopolize trade or commerce in bananas with foreign nations. By these assumptions it is not intended to intimate any opinion as to the sufficiency of all the allegations in respect of combination or monopoly. On March 30, 1899 (the alleged date of the organization of defendant), and continuously since that time, the plaintiff has been a corporation duly organized and existing under the laws of Alabama, and formed for the purpose of importing bananas into the United States from Central and South America; this is the only business of the plaintiff shown in the complaint. In June, 1904, one McConnell was in peaceable possession of a certain plantation, which was and is wholly situated within the boundaries of the Republic of Panama, as previously delimited by the arbitration of President Loubet of France. Prior to June, 1904, plaintiff had not actually engaged in the banana business, or any productive business whatever. In that month and year it acquired McConnell's rights to his plantation, as also his right to construct and intention to build a railway, to bring the produce of said plantation to tide water. At that time McConnell had a grant or concession from the Republic of Panama or its predecessor sovereign, to construct said railway, which concession was assignable and actually assigned. Later in 1904 the Executive Department of the government of Costa Rico, acting through officials (either military or civil) and soldiers in its service, forcibly ejected plaintiff from the plantation in question, or the most important portion thereof, and seized vi et armis plaintiff's personal property situated there or thereabouts, including especially the material for the construction of the aforesaid railroad.
Such ejection of plaintiff from the real estate in question, and such seizure of personalty was perpetrated by the Costa Rican officials and soldiers aforesaid at the instigation suggestion, and procurement of defendant, and for the purpose of preventing plaintiff from reaping the fruits of its investment in land and personalty, and in order to prevent it from harvesting bananas from its plantation, and transporting the same to the United States in competition with defendant's own importations. Whether or not an order for the seizure aforesaid was given by the supreme governmental authority of Costa Rico before seizure made, the conduct of said soldiers and officials was approved and ratified by the government of Costa Rico, and the seizure and occupation aforesaid continued by the authority of said government down to the time of the beginning of this suit.
Before the transfer of the plantation in question to plaintiff, a certain action had been begun in a court of Costa Rico seeking to establish title to said plantation, or to the most important portion thereof, in one Astua, a citizen of Costa Rico. In that suit such proceedings were had that after said transfer of the said plantation a judgment or decree was entered declaring title to be in said Astua. Such judicial proceedings were taken at the instigation or for the benefit of this defendant with the purpose of preventing plaintiff from gathering bananas from the land in question, and exporting them to the United States in competition with defendant's imports, and, shortly after said decree passed Astua's title was transferred to a corporation allied with and controlled by defendant, and identified with the unlawful combination and monopoly aforesaid. Said proceedings of the civil or military officials of Costa Rico, and of the soldiers of that government and of the court thereof, were taken in pursuance of an asserted right of sovereignty over the plantation in question, or the principal portion thereof, and over the land on which the plaintiff's personal property aforesaid was physically situated; and such assertion of sovereignty so as aforesaid made is irreconcilable with said delimination of boundaries between Panama and Costa Rico made by President Loubet in pursuance of an international arbitration agreement. Despite protests from the Department of State of the United States, made to the government of the Republic of Panama, Costa Rico down to the time of the beginning of this suit maintained de facto jurisdiction and sovereignty over the plantation in question and the land on which the seizure of said personal property was made. By reason of the facts so assumed for the purposes of this motion, plaintiff has never exported, gathered, cut, or harvested any bananas from the plantation in question, and has never as matter of fact at any time entered upon or engaged in trade or commerce in bananas. Both Costa Rico and Panama are sovereign independent nations, and were so at all the times in the complaint mentioned. The action of Costa Rico constituted an invasion of the territorial rights of Panama-- in which invasion, however, Panama has acquiesced down to the time of the beginning of this action, and the fact of such acquiescence in the de facto sovereignty of Costa Rico over the premises in question has been recognized by the Department of State of the United States.
For the purpose of preventing competition in the exportation of bananas from Costa Rico and Panama the defendant, by outbidding all other competitors, has secured long-term contracts with most, if not all, of the producers of this fruit in that region. Defendant has also caused to be established a transportation line between ports of the United States and the region where this plantation lies. Such transportation line holds itself out as a common carrier, but has refused to accept...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Steele v. Bulova Watch Co
... ... The issue is whether a United States District Court has jurisdiction to award relief to an American ... American Banana Co. v. United Fruit Co., 1909, 213 U.S. 347, 29 S.Ct. 511, 53 L.Ed. 826, ... ...
-
Hunt v. Mobil Oil Corporation
...(C.D.Cal.1971), aff'd per curiam, 461 F.2d 1261 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 409 U.S. 950, 93 S.Ct. 272, 34 L.Ed. 2d 221 (1972). 45 160 F. 184 (C.C.S.D.N.Y.), aff'd, 166 F. 261 (2d Cir. 1908), aff'd, 213 U.S. 347, 29 S.Ct. 511, 53 L.Ed. 826 (1909). 46 Occidental Petroleum Corp. v. Buttes Gas &......
-
Occidental Petroleum Corp. v. Buttes Gas & Oil Co.
...of the act of state doctrine's relevance to the present case begins with one of the early act of state cases, American Banana Co. v. United Fruit Co., 160 F. 184 (C.C.S.D.N.Y.), aff'd, 166 F. 261 (2nd Cir. 1908), aff'd, 213 U.S. 347, 29 S.Ct. 511, 53 L.Ed. 826 (1909). The facts of that case......
-
Image and Sound Service Corp. v. Altec Service Corp.
...earnings in a projected enterprise that never materialized. Central Coal & Coke Co. v. Hartman, 8 Cir., 111 F. 96; American Banana Co. v. United Fruit Co., 160 F. 184, affirmed, 2 Cir., 166 F. 261, affirmed 213 U.S. 347, 29 S.Ct. 511, 53 L.Ed. Accordingly the defendants' motion for summary ......
-
Should a Trade Secrets Misappropriation Claim Lie in the Procrustean Antitrust Bed?
...1971). See generally Marquardt &Co. v. Bulkley, 2 Trade Reg.Rep. Par. 1630.403 (S.D.N.Y. 1941); American Banana Co. v. United FruitCo., 160 F. 184, 189 (S.D.N.Y.), aff'd, 168 F. 261 (2d Cir. 1908),affd,213U.S. 347 (1909).Butsee Northeast Airlines, Inc. v. World Airways, Inc.,262 F. Supp. 31......