Federal Trade Commission v. Gratz
Decision Date | 07 June 1920 |
Docket Number | No. 492,492 |
Citation | 64 L.Ed. 993,40 S.Ct. 572,253 U.S. 421 |
Parties | FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION v. GRATZ et al |
Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Messrs. Huston Thompson, of Washington, D. C., Alexander C. King, of Atlanta, Ga., and Claude R. Porter, of Washington, D. C., for petitioner.
Mr. Thomas F. Magner, of Brooklyn, N. Y., for respondents.
By an act approved September 26, 1914 (chapter 311, 38 Stat. 717 [Comp. St. §§ 8836a-8836k]), Congress made provision for the Federal Trade Commission and declared its powers.
Section 4 (section 8836d) defines commerce as:
'Commerce among the several states or with foreign nations, or in any territory of the United States or in the District of Columbia, or between any such territory and another, or between any such territory and any state or foreign nation or between the District of Columbia and any state or territory or foreign nation.'
Section 5 further provides that the commission may apply to the designated Circuit Court of Appeals to enforce an order——
Sections 6 and 7 (sections 8836f, 8836g) empower the commission to require reports and compile information concerning corporations; to inquire concerning execution of decrees restraining violations of the anti-trust acts; to investigate alleged violations of such acts; to recommend readjustments of corporate business; to publish information and make reports to Congress; to classify corporations and make rules and regulations; to investigate trade conditions; to act, under orders of the court, as a master in chancery in certain designated circumstances, etc.
Undertaking to proceed under section 5, June 4, 1917, the commission issued a complaint containing two counts against respondents. The first related to unfair methods of competition, and the second charged violation of section 3 of the Clayton Act, approved October 15, 1914 (chapter 323, 38 Stat. 730 [Comp. St. § 8835c]). Respondents denied both charges. After taking much testimony the commission held there was no evidence to support the second count; but it ruled that respondents had practiced unfair competition and ordered that they——
'their officers and agents, cease and desist from requiring purchasers of cotton ties to also buy or agree to buy, a proportionate amount of American Manufacturing Company's bagging and fr ther that the respondents cease and desist from refusing to sell cotton ties unless the purchasers buy or agree to buy from them corresponding amounts of American Manufacturing Company's bagging, or any amount of cotton bagging of any kind.'
Upon respondents' petition the Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, annulled the commission's order. 258 Fed. 314, 169 C. C. A. 330. It said:
'We think there is no evidence to support any general practice of the respondents to refuse to sell ties unless the purchaser bought at the same time the necessary amount of the American Manufacturning Company's bagging, and that the commission has no jurisdiction to determine the merits of specific individual grievances.'
The challenged order is based solely upon the first count of the complaint which follows:
'Federal Trade Commission v. Anderson Gratz and Benjamin Gratz, Copartners Doing Business under the Firm Name and Style of Warren, Jones & Gratz, P. P. Williams, W. H. Fitzhugh, and Alex. Fitzhugh, Copartners Doing Business under the Firm Name and Style of P. P. Williams & Co., and Charles O. Elmer.
'The Federal Trade Commission having reason to believe, from a preliminary investigation made by it, that Anderson Gratz and Benjamin Gratz, copartners doing business under the firm name and style of Warren, Jones & Gratz, P. P. Williams, W. H. Fitzhugh, and Alex. Fitzhugh, copartners doing business under the firm name and style of P. P. Williams & Co., and Charles O. Elmer, all of whom are hereinafter referred to as respondents, have been and are using unfair methods of competition in interstate commerce in violation of the provisions of section 5 of the act of Congress approved September 26, 1914, entitled 'An act to create a Federal Trade Commission, to define its powers and duties, and for other purposes,' and it appearing that a proceeding by it in respect thereof would be to the interest of the public, issues this complaint, stating its charges in that respect, on information and belief, as follows:
'I.
'Paragraph 1: That the respondents Anderson Gratz and Benjamin Gratz are copartners doing business under the firm name and style of Warren, Jones & Gratz, having their principal office and place of business in the city of St. Louis and state of Missouri, and are engaged in the business of selling, in interstate commerce, either directly to the trade, or through the respondents hereinafter named, steel ties made and used for binding bales of cotton, and which steel ties are manufactured by the Carnegie Steel Company of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, and also selling, in the same manner, jute bagging, used to wrap bales of cotton, and which jute bagging is manufactured by the American Manufacturing Company, of St. Louis, Missouri.
'Paragraph 3: That with the purpose, intent, and effect of discouraging and stifling competition in interstate commerce in the sale of such bagging, all of the respondents do now refuse and for more than a year last past have refused, to sell and of such ties unless the prospective purchaser thereof would also buy from them bagging to be used with the number of ties proposed to be bought; that is to say, for each six of such ties proposed to be bought from the respondents the prospective purchaser is required to buy six yards of such bag ing.'
It is unnecessary now to discuss conflicting views concerning validity and meaning of the act creating the commission and effect of the evidence presented. The judgment below must be affirmed, since, in our opinion, the first count of...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Schechter Poultry Corporation v. United States United States v. Schechter Poultry Corporation
...Federal Trade Commission v. Raladam Co., 283 U.S. 643, 648, 51 S.Ct. 587, 75 L.Ed. 1324, 79 A.L.R. 1191; Federal Trade Commission v. Gratz, 253 U.S. 421, 40 S.Ct. 572, 64 L.Ed. 993. Delegation in such circumstances is born of the necessities of the occasion. The industries of the country ar......
-
Federal Trade Commission v. Cement Institute
...public policy because of their dangerous tendency unduly to hinder competition or create monopoly.' Federal Trade Commission v. Gratz, 253 U.S. 421, 427, 40 S.Ct. 572, 575, 64 L.Ed. 993. In 1921, the Court in Federal Trade Commission v. Beech Nut Packing Co., 257 U.S. 441, 42 S.Ct. 150, 66 ......
-
North American Airlines v. Civil Aeronautics Board
...free and fair competition as commonly understood and practiced by honorable opponents in trade." Federal Trade Comm. v. Gratz, 1920, 253 U.S. 421, 427-428, 40 S.Ct. 572, 575, 64 L.Ed. 993.12 What may be "`unfair methods of competition'" will not admit of precise definition and "are thus to ......
-
Pub Co v. United States United States v. Pub Co
...For that reason, tying agreements fare harshly under the laws forbidding restraints of trade. Federal Trade Commission v. Gratz, 1920, 253 U.S. 421, 40 S.Ct. 572, 579, 64 L.Ed. 993, decided that a complaint which charged a seller with conditioning his sale of steel ties on purchases of jute......
-
Tying meets the new institutional economics: farewell to the chimera of forcing.
...21, at 64-65 ("Plainly, the Court no longer accepts the view that vertical relationships are inherently coercive."); cf. FTC v. Gratz, 253 U.S. 421, 438 (1920) (Brandeis, J., dissenting) ("[W]hat approximately equal individual traders may do in honorable rivalry, may result in grave injusti......
-
COVERING PRYING EYES WITH AN INVISIBLE HAND: PRIVACY, ANTITRUST, AND THE NEW BRANDEIS MOVEMENT.
...L. REV. 2026, 2040 (2015) ("[The FTC] has no power to issue rules to implement the Sherman or Clayton Acts...."). (244.) FTC v. Gratz, 253 U.S. 421, 427 (245.) Cf. West Virginia v. EPA, No. 20-1530, slip op. at 17 (June 30, 2022) ("[O]ur precedent teaches that there are 'extraordinary cases......
-
Federal Law of Unfair Competition
...Keppel & Bro., 291 U.S. 304, FTC v. Algoma Lumber Co., 291 U.S. 67, 73 (1934)). 195. See Raladam Co., 283 U.S. at 647-54; FTC v. Gratz, 253 U.S. 421, 428-29 (1920), overruled in part by FTC v. Brown Show Co., 384 U.S. 316 (1966); cf. R.F. Keppel & Bro., 291 U.S. at 308-09; Algoma Lumber Co.......
-
ANTITRUST ANTITEXTUALISM.
...in the conduct of their own affairs."). (184) Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. FTC, 258 F. 307, 310-12 (7th Cir. 1919). (185) FTC v. Gratz, 253 U.S. 421, 427 (186) Humphrey's Ex'r v. United States, 295 U.S. 602, 629 (1935). (187) Clayton Act, ch. 323, [section] 2, 38 Stat. 730, 730 (1914) (codif......