Federal Trade Commission v. Gratz

• Citation: 258 F. 314
• Decision Date: 14 May 1919
• Docket Number: 236.
• Parties: FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION v. GRATZ et al. [1]
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit

258 F. 314

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION v. GRATZ et al. ^[1]

No. 236.

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

May 14, 1919

T. F Magner, of Brooklyn, N.Y., for petitioner.

John Walsh, of Washington, D.C., for respondent.

Before WARD, HOUGH, and MANTON, Circuit Judges.

WARD Circuit Judge.

This is a petition of Anderson Gratz, a member of the firm of Warren Jones & Gratz, under section 5 of the Act of September 26 1914, c. 311, 38 Stat. L. 719 (Comp. St. Sec. 8836e) creating the Federal Trade Commission to review the following order of the commission:

'Therefore, it is ordered, that the respondents, 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 Alexander Fitzhugh, copartners, doing business under the firm name and style of P. P. Williams & Co., and C. O. Elmer, 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, further, 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.

'By the Commission,

(Seal.) L. L. Bracken, Secretary.'

If Anderson Gratz has not sufficient standing to file this petition, counsel for the commission has very fairly waived the objection and invited the court to dispose of the questions raised.

The first count of the complaint served on the respondents, which is the only one involved is as follows:

'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, ties made and used for binding bales of cotton, and which steel ties are manufactured by the Carnegie Steel Company of Pittsburgh, Pa., 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, Mo.

'Paragraph 2. That the respondents P. P. Williams, W. H. Fitzhugh, and Alex. Fitzhugh are copartners, doing business under the firm name and style of P. P. williams & Co., having their principal office and place of business in the city of Vicksburg, and state of Mississippi, and the said last-named respondents and the said respondent Charles O. Elmer, who is located and doing business at the city of New Orleans, and state of Louisiana, are the selling and distributing agents of the said firm of Warren, Jones & Gratz, and sell and distribute the ties and bagging, manufactured as aforesaid, in interstate commerce, principally to jobbers and dealers, who resell the same to retailers, cotton ginners and farmers.

'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 any 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 bagging.'

The respondents filed an answer admitting the facts stated in paragraphs 1 and 2, but denying the facts stated and the conclusion therefrom contained in paragraph 3. They appeared and offered testimony before the commission.

The commission's material findings of fact and its conclusions of law are as follows:

'Paragraph 2. That within three years last past respondents, 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 Alexander Fitzhugh, copartners, doing business under the firm name and style of P. P. Williams & Co., and C. O. elmer, adopted and practiced the policy of refusing to sell steel ties to those merchants and dealers who wished to bu them from them unless such merchants and dealers would also buy from them a corresponding amount of jute bagging. * * *

'Paragraph 4. * * * The dominating and controlling position occupied by said respondents in the sale and distribution of ties made it possible for them to force would-be purchasers of ties to also buy from them bagging manufactured by the American Manufacturing Company, and in many instances, said respondents refused to sell ties unless the purchaser would also buy from them a corresponding amount of bagging, and such purchasers were oftentimes compelled to buy bagging manufactured by the American Manufacturing Company, from said respondents, in order to procure a sufficient supply of steel ties used for the purpose aforesaid.

'Conclusions of Law.

...