Charles Ramsay Co v. Associated Bill Posters of United States and Canada Wm Rankin Co v. Same, s. 100
| Decision Date | 02 January 1923 |
| Docket Number | 101,Nos. 100,s. 100 |
| Citation | 260 U.S. 501,43 S.Ct. 167,67 L.Ed. 368 |
| Parties | CHARLES A. RAMSAY CO. v. ASSOCIATED BILL POSTERS OF UNITED STATES AND CANADA et al. WM. H. RANKIN CO. v. SAME |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Messrs. John A. Hartpence and Thomas S. Haight, both of Jersey City, N. J., for plaintiffs in error.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 501-505 intentionally omitted] Mr. Richard T. Greene, of New York City, for defendants in error.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 505-509 intentionally omitted] Mr. Justice McREYNOLDS delivered the opinion of the Court.
These are separate actions for treble damages under the Sherman Act (Comp. St. § 8820 et seq.). The plaintiffs are distinct corporations and demand different sums; otherwise their complaints are identical. Holding no cause of action was stated, the trial court dismissed both complaints upon demurrer, and the Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed this action. 271 Fed. 140. It will suffice to state the substance of the pertinent allegations.
Plaintiffs were solicitors of advertising for customers in many States. They prepared, designed, purchased and sold posters and caused them to be displayed by local operators in many cities and towns throughout the United States and Canada. They contracted with their customers and received pay for the entire service of preparing, designing, purchasing and posting the advertisements and were engaged in interstate commerce.
Defendants are a New York corporation and its officers and directors, together with certain favored solicitors.
Advertising by posters has become common, and in most of the larger cities and towns throughout this country and Canada one or more local concerns follow the business of displaying them. Usually advertisers contract with a lithographer directly or through agents (solicitors), such as plaintiffs, for the manufacture or purchase of posters, and with the local billposter for displaying them. Often the lithographer does business in a different state from the advertiser and both operate in different states from those where most of the billboards are located. Some posters are prepared for the exclusive use of an advertiser and some ('stock' or 'sample' ones) for general use. Nearly all are put out by six or eight lithographers.
In 1891 many billposters throughout the United States and Canada, theretofore in competition, entered into a combination and conspiracy to monopolize the business in their respective localities and to dominate and control all trade and commerce in posters within such limits. To that end they organized a voluntary association—afterwards incorporated—whose membership is now very large.
The following were among the means adopted for carrying out the purposes of the combination and conspiracy: (a) Membership has been restricted to one employing billposter in each town or city and members have been prohibited from competing with each other. (b) Funds have been furnished to members for buying out competitors. (c) Rules prevent members accepting certain work form an advertiser who has given business to a nonmember. (d) A schedule of prices has been fixed and members have been prohibited from accepting certain kinds of work from any one except solicitors (twelve in all) arbitrarily selected and licensed, who are forbidden to patronize a nonmember in any place where any member does business. (e) By threats of withdrawal of patronage, manufacturers have been prevented from furnishing posters to independent billposters or to advertisers desiring to do business with independents except upon prohibitive terms.
The association's membership has become large, its powers and influence great, while the number of independent billposters has greatly declined, and it is now practically impossible for an advertiser to utilize posters except by employing members of the association and upon terms arbitrarily...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
CE Stevens Co. v. Foster & Kleiser Co.
...described and the means by which it was to be effected would be unlawful under the Sherman Act. (Ramsay Co. v. Bill Posters Association (1923), 260 U.S. 501, 43 S.Ct. 167, 67 L.Ed. 368). However, `In a civil action for damages sustained because of a conspiracy in restraint of trade, the rig......
-
Federal Trade Commission v. Cement Institute
...63d Cong., 2d Sess., 18—19 (1914); Sen.Rep.No.597, 63d Cong., 2d Sess. 12—13 (1914). 7 See Ramsay Co. v. Bill Posters Ass'n, 260 U.S. 501, 511, 43 S.Ct. 167, 168, 67 L.Ed. 368; Stevens Co. v. Foster & Kleiser Co., 311 U.S. 255, 260, 261, 61 S.Ct. 210, 212, 213, 85 L.Ed. 173; United States v......
-
Ring v. Spina, 230.
...draw a different conclusion as to a stage production. Cf. Note, 35 Col.L.Rev. 1072, 1090; Charles A. Ramsay Co. v. Associated Bill Posters of U. S. and Canada, 260 U.S. 501, 43 S.Ct. 167, 67 L.Ed. 368; C. E. Stevens Co. v. Foster & Kleiser Co., 311 U.S. 255, 61 S.Ct. 210, 85 L.Ed. 173; Apex......
-
Redwood Theatres, Inc. v. Festival Enterprises, Inc.
...had been and would be exerted to oppress individuals and injure the public generally." Again, in Ramsay Co. v. Bill Posters Assn. (1923) 260 U.S. 501, 512, 43 S.Ct. 167, 168, 67 L.Ed. 368, the Court stated that "[t]he fundamental purpose of the Sherman Act was to secure equality of opportun......
-
The Economic Philosophy of Anti-Trust Legislation
...S. in footnote 24 are proof of its falsity. 443 (1921); Ramsey v. Associated Bill Posters, 24 Chicago Board of Trade v. U. S., 246 U. S. 260 U. S. 501 (1923); Binderup v. Pathé Exchange, 241 (1918); National Assn. of Window Glass Inc., 263 U. S. 291 (1923); Brims v. U. S., M’frs. v. ......