William Fleitmann v. Welsbach Street Lighting Company of America No 145 William Fleitmann v. Arthur Shaw No 146
| Citation | 36 S.Ct. 233,60 L.Ed. 505,240 U.S. 27 |
| Decision Date | 24 January 1916 |
| Docket Number | Nos. 145 and 146,s. 145 and 146 |
| Parties | WILLIAM M. FLEITMANN, Suing on Behalf of Himself and All Other Stockholders of the Consolidated Street Lighting Company, Who Shall Elect to Come in and Contribute to the Expense of the Action, Appt., v. WELSBACH STREET LIGHTING COMPANY OF AMERICA. NO 145. WILLIAM M. FLEITMANN, Suing as Above, Appt., v. ARTHUR E. SHAW. NO 146 |
| Court | United States Supreme Court |
Messrs. Henry L. Scheuerman, Henry A. Wise, and Harry F. Mela for appellant.
Messrs. Edward W. Hatch and William F. Sheehan for appellees.
This is a bill by a stockholder of the Consolidated Street Lighting Company, against that company and a number of other corporations and individuals, to compel the defendants other than his own company to pay to the latter threefold damages under the Sherman act. July 2, 1890, chap. 647, § 7, 26 Stat. at L. 209, 210, Comp. Stat. 1913, §§ 8820, 8829. According to the allegations the other defendants conspired to control the business of municipal lighting, etc., throughout the United States, and in pursuance of their conspiracy procured their agent to purchase from the former owners a majority of the stock in the plaintiff's company, and then proceeded to ruin it and drive it out of business by misconducting its affairs. The plaintiff has demanded of his company and its officers to institute proceedings, but they have refused. The bill was dismissed by the district court on motion of the appellees in the two appeals before this court, and the decree was affirmed by the circuit court of appeals. 128 C. C. A. 31, 211 Fed. 103.
The bill alleges in terms that it is brought to recover threefold the damages alleged; a decree for such damages was the decree prayed. The only specific error assigned on appeal to the circuit court of appeals was holding that such a suit in equity could not be maintained by a single stockholder; that was the only question dealt with by the district court, and that was the ground of decision in the circuit court of appeals. It really is the only question in the case.
Of course the claim set up is that of the corporation alone, and if the corporation were proceeding directly under the statute no one can doubt that its only remedy would be at law. Therefore the inquiry at once arises why the defendants' right to a jury trial should be taken away because the present plaintiff cannot persuade the only party...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Banana Distributors v. United Fruit Company
...but to aid in achieving the broad social object of the statute. * * *" (At page 88.) In Fleitmann v. Welsbach Street Lighting Co., 1916, 240 U.S. 27, at page 29, 36 S.Ct. 233, at page 234, 60 L.Ed. 505, Holmes, J., described a private Sherman Act case as involving "a penalty of triple In Un......
-
Beacon Theaters, Inc v. Westover
...part of the congressional plan for making competition rather than monopoly the rule of trade, see Fleitmann v. Welsbach Street Lighting Co., 240 U.S. 27, 29, 36 S.Ct. 233, 234, 60 L.Ed. 505, the Sherman and Clayton Act issues on which Fox sought a declaration were essentially jury Neverthel......
-
Japanese Electronic Products Antitrust Litigation, In re
...Act. Finally, appellees argue that the Supreme Court recognized a statutory right to jury trial in Fleitmann v. Welsbach Street Lighting Co., 240 U.S. 27, 36 S.Ct. 233, 60 L.Ed. 505 (1916). A shareholder of a corporation allegedly injured by a Sherman Act violation brought a derivative suit......
-
Arnstein v. Porter
...were decided after 1909. 3 United States v. Cooper Corp., 312 U. S. 600, 604, 61 S.Ct. 742, 85 L.Ed. 1071. 4 Fleitmann v. Welsbach Co., 240 U.S. 27, 36 S.Ct. 233, 60 L.Ed. 505; Meeker v. Lehigh Valley R. Co., C.C.N.Y., 162 F. 354, 4a The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A. followi......
-
Table of Cases
...U.S. 83, 88 S.Ct. 1942, 20 L.Ed.2d 947 (1968), 222, 340, 628, 634-37, 639-43, 646, 650, 660-61 Fleitmann v. Welsbach Street Lighting Co., 240 U.S. 27, 36 S.Ct. 233, 60 L.Ed. 505 (1916), Fletcher v. Peck, 10 U.S. (6 Cranch) 87, 3 L.Ed. 162 (1810), 131, 372, 432, 952, 1236 Florida Bar v. Went......