Callaghan & Co. v. Federal Trade Commission
| Decision Date | 19 August 1947 |
| Docket Number | 19401.,No. 38,40,Dockets 19399,39,19400,38 |
| Citation | 163 F.2d 359 |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit |
| Parties | CALLAGHAN & CO. v. FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION. FRANK SHEPARD CO. v. SAME. WEST PUBLISHING CO. et al. v. SAME. |
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
Before AUGUSTUS N. HAND, CHASE and FRANK, Circuit Judges.
Isham, Lincoln & Beale, Cyrus H. Adams and Justin A. Stanley, all of Chicago, Ill., and William M. Sperry 2nd, of New York City, for petitioner Callaghan & Co.
Sullivan & Cromwell, (Arthur H. Dean and Howard T. Milman, of counsel), all of New York City, for petitioner Frank Shepard Co.
Lundgren, Bartels & Lincoln, of New York City, for petitioners West Publishing Co., and others.
W. T. Kelley, General Counsel, Walter B. Wooden, Associate General Counsel, K. E. Steinhauer, Special Attorney, all of Washington, D. C., for Federal Trade Commission.
It is well settled that in reviewing an order of the Federal Trade Commission in respect to the sufficiency of the findings upon which it is based our power is limited to the determination of whether there is substantial evidence to support them. It is not enough for the petitioners to persuade us that there was evidence on which the facts as claimed by them might have been found, or inferences favorable to them might have been drawn, by the Commission. Sec. 5(c) of the Federal Trade Commission Act. 15 U.S.C.A. § 45(c) makes all the findings of the Commission which are supported by the evidence conclusive upon us. The existence in the record of substantial evidence to support the findings is a matter which must appear to our satisfaction if the order is to be given effect but the weight to be given established facts and what reasonable inferences may be drawn from them is within the sole province of the Commission. Fed. Trade Comn. v. Pac. States Paper Trade Assn., 273 U.S. 52, 47 S.Ct. 255, 71 L.Ed. 534; Phelps Dodge Refining Corp. v. Federal Trade Comn., 2 Cir., 139 F.2d 393.
The record is extensive, in excess of four thousand printed pages, and no good purpose will be served by trying to isolate and comment upon parts here and there which support or conflict with the findings or some of them. U. S. Malsters Association v. F.T.C., 7 Cir., 152 F.2d 161. A sufficient study of this record has convinced us that, despite such conflicts as are to be found, there is ample evidence to give substantial support to all of the findings on which the order is based.
The contention that the stipulation of facts signed by part of the respondents below was not competent evidence against these petitioners is sound but the point is quite immaterial because it does not appear that this stipulation was improperly used to the disadvantage of these petitioners, the competent evidence in the record, apart from this stipulation, being an adequate basis for the findings now questioned.
Nor do we think that the order itself is vague and uncertain. If it be true, as petitioners argue,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Vandervelde v. Put and Call Brokers and Dealers Ass'n
...562, 576 (N.D.Ohio 1961), rev'd on other grounds, 372 U.S. 253, 83 S.Ct. 696, 9 L.Ed.2d 738 (1963). Cf. Callaghan & Co. v. Federal Trade Commission, 163 F.2d 359, 373 (2d Cir. 1947). What the rule here requires is that a maximum resale price be charged a certain class of buyers. Price fixin......
-
Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co., Inc. v. F. T. C.
...FTC v. Algoma Lumber Co., 291 U.S. 67, 73, 54 S.Ct. 315, 78 L.Ed. 655 (1934); Foremost Dairies v. FTC, supra; Callaghan & Co. v. FTC, 163 F.2d 359, 372 (2d Cir. 1947). Looking, then, at only some of the evidence presented by the Commission, it is clear that a prima facie case of illegal pri......
-
Ger-Ro-Mar, Inc. v. F. T. C.
...of the recruiting scheme disclosed here is not supported by substantial evidence or even a scintilla. Cf. Callaghan & Co. v. FTC, 163 F.2d 359, 372 (2d Cir. 1947). Hence, we vacate and set aside paragraphs 1 and 2 of the trial order of the Commission. It does not follow of course that the f......
- New Orleans, T. & M. Ry. Co. v. Group of Institutional Investors Holding First and Refunding Mortgage 5% Gold Bonds of Missouri Pac. R. Co.