Co v. Joseph Seagram Sons, KIEFER-STEWART

CourtUnited States Supreme Court
Writing for the CourtBLACK
Citation71 S.Ct. 259,340 U.S. 211,95 L.Ed. 219
PartiesCO. v. JOSEPH E. SEAGRAM & SONS, Inc., et al
Docket NumberKIEFER-STEWART,No. 297
Decision Date02 January 1951

340 U.S. 211
71 S.Ct. 259
95 L.Ed. 219
KIEFER-STEWART CO.

v.

JOSEPH E. SEAGRAM & SONS, Inc., et al.

No. 297.
Argued Dec. 8, 1950.
Decided Jan. 2, 1951.
Rehearing Denied Feb. 26, 1951.

See 340 U.S. 939, 71 S.Ct. 487.

Page 212

Mr. Paul A. Porter, Washington, D.C., Mr. Joseph J. Daniels, Indianapolis, Ind., for petitioner.

Mr. Paul Y. Davis, Indianapolis, Ind., for respondents.

Mr. Justice BLACK delivered the opinion of the Court.

The petitioner, Kiefer-Stewart Company, is an Indiana drug concern which does a wholesale liquor business. Respondents, Seagram and Calvert corporations, are affiliated companies that sell liquor in interstate commerce to Indiana wholesalers. Petitioner brought this action in a federal district court for treble damages under the Sherman Act. 15 U.S.C. §§ 1, 15, 15 U.S.C.A. §§ 1, 15. The complaint charged that respondents had agreed or conspired to sell liquor only to those Indiana wholesalers who would resell at prices fixed by Seagram and Calvert, and that this agreement deprived petitioner of a continuing supply of liquor to its great damage.1 On the trial, evidence was introduced tending to show that respondents had fixed maximum prices above which the wholesalers could not resell. The jury returned a verdict for petitioner and damages were awarded. The Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reversed. 182 F.2d 228. It held that an agreement among respondents to fix maximum resale prices did not violate the Sherman Act because such prices promoted rather than restrained competition. It also held the evidence insufficient to show that respondents had acted in concert. Doubt as to the correctness

Page 213

of the decision on questions important in antitrust litigation prompted us to grant certiorari. 340 U.S. 863, 71 S.Ct. 89.

The Court of Appeals erred in holding that an agreement among competitors to fix maximum resale prices of their products does not violate the Sherman Act. For such agreements, no less than those to fix minimum prices, cripple the freedom of traders and thereby restrain their ability to sell in accordance with their own judgment. We reaffirm what we said in United States v. Socony-Vacuum Oil Co., 310 U.S. 150, 223, 60 S.Ct. 811, 844, 84 L.Ed. 1129: 'Under the Sherman Act a combination formed for the purpose and with the effect of raising, depressing, fixing, pegging, or stabilizing the price of a commodity in interstate or foreign commerce is illegal per se.'

The Court of Appeals also erred in holding the evidence insufficient to support a finding by the jury that respondents had conspired to fix maximum resale prices. The jury was authorized by the evidence to accept the following as facts: Seagram refused to sell to petitioner and others unless the purchasers agreed to the maximum resale price fixed by Seagram. Calvert was at first willing to sell without this restrictive condition and arrangements were made for petitioner to buy large quantities of Calvert liquor. Petitioner subsequently was informed by Calvert, however, that the arrangements would not be carried out because Calvert had 'to go along with Seagram.' Moreover, about this time conferences were held by...

To continue reading

Request your trial
423 practice notes
  • Knutson v. Daily Review, Inc., No. C-73-1354-CBR.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. Northern District of California
    • September 23, 1974
    ...though it fixes the maximum rather than the minimum resale price, ibid. at 152-153, 88 S.Ct. 869; Kiefer-Stewart Co. v. Seagram & Sons, 340 U.S. 211, 213, 71 S.Ct. 259, 95 L.Ed. 219, rehearing denied, 340 U.S. 939, 71 S.Ct. 487, 95 L.Ed. 678 (1951) and even though the agreement is between a......
  • United States v. Twentieth Century-Fox Film Corp., No. 14354.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. United States District Court (Southern District of California)
    • January 10, 1956
    ...felt that there was evidence of agreement "to stop selling to particular customers". Kiefer-Stewart Co. v. Joseph E. Seagram & Sons, 1951, 340 U.S. 211, 214, 71 S.Ct. 259, 261, 95 L.Ed. 219. However, the language quoted applies aptly to a situation such as confronts us 35 Chicago Board of T......
  • Oakland-Alameda County Builders' Exchange v. F. P. Lathrop Const. Co., OAKLAND-ALAMEDA
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • May 26, 1970
    ...United States v. Socony-Vacuum Oil Co., 310 U.S. 150, 60 S.Ct. 811, 84 L.Ed. 1129 (1940); Kiefer-Stewart Co. v. Joseph E. Seagram & Sons, 340 U.S. 211, 71 S.Ct. 259, 95 L.Ed. 219 (1951); United States v. McKesson & Robbins, Inc., 351 U.S. 305, 76 S.Ct. 937, 100 L.Ed. 1209 (1956).' (Albrecht......
  • United States Brewers Ass'n, Inc. v. Healy, Civ. No. H-81-836.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. United States District Court (Connecticut)
    • February 16, 1982
    ...S.Ct. 745, 746, 95 L.Ed. 1035 (1951) (distillers made retailers sign price fixing contracts); Kiefer-Stewart Co. v. Seagram & Sons, Inc., 340 U.S. 211, 213, 71 S.Ct. 259, 260, 95 L.Ed. 219 (1951) (Seagram refused to sell unless purchaser agreed to maximum resale price); United States v. A. ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
416 cases
  • Evans v. SS Kresge Company, Civ. A. No. 71-85.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 3th Circuit. United States District Court (Eastern District of Pennsylvania)
    • May 13, 1975
    ...fixing maximum prices are per se illegal as well as those fixing minimum prices, Kiefer-Stewart Co. v. Joseph E. Seagram & Sons, Inc., 340 U.S. 211, 71 S.Ct. 259, 95 L.Ed. 219 (1951); Albrecht v. Herald Co., 390 U.S. 145, 88 S.Ct. 869, 19 L.Ed. 2d 998 (1968), defendant contends that plainti......
  • In re Mid-Atlantic Toyota Antitrust Litigation, MDL-456. Civ. A. No. Y-80-3238
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 4th Circuit. United States District Court (Maryland)
    • April 4, 1983
    ...Davis & Co., 362 U.S. 29, 80 S.Ct. 503, 4 L.Ed.2d 505 (1960), setting minimum prices; Kiefer-Stewart Co. v. Seagram & Sons, 340 U.S. 21, 71 S.Ct. 259, 95 L.Ed. 219 (1951), setting maximum prices; United States v. Socony-Vacuum Oil, 310 U.S. 150, 60 S.Ct. 811, 84 L.Ed. 1129 (1940), buying su......
  • Rea v. Ford Motor Company, Civ. A. No. 67-286.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 3th Circuit. United States District Court (Eastern District of Pennsylvania)
    • January 30, 1973
    ...International Parts, 392 U.S. 134, 88 S.Ct. 1981, 20 L.Ed.2d 982 (1968). See also Kiefer-Stewart Co. v. Joseph E. Seagram & Sons, Inc., 340 U. S. 211, 71 S.Ct. 259, 95 L.Ed. 219 (1950). In this case there is evidence that the defendant conspired or combined with its wholly owned factory sto......
  • Consolidated Exp., Inc. v. New York Shipping, Inc., Civ. A. No. 76-1645
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 3th Circuit. United States District Courts. 3th Circuit. District of New Jersey
    • May 11, 1978
    ...barriers to relief where a private suit serves important public purposes. Thus, in Kiefer-Stewart Co. v. Joseph E. Seagram & Sons, Inc., 340 U.S. 211, 71 S.Ct. 259, 95 L.Ed. 219 (1951), the court held that plaintiff's participation in an unrelated antitrust conspiracy was no bar to its suit......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
8 books & journal articles
  • Partial Price-Fixing and Semi-Collusion
    • United States
    • Antitrust Bulletin Nbr. 66-4, December 2021
    • December 1, 2021
    ...(1990).14. United States v. Socony-Vacuum Oil Co., 310 U.S. 150, 221 (1940).15. Kiefer-Stewart Co. v. Joseph E. Seagram & Sons, Inc., 340 U.S. 211, 213 (1951). The per se ban on horizontal maximumresale price agreements was reaffirmed in Arizona v. Maricopa County Med. Soc’y, 457 U.S. 332 (......
  • Section 7 of the Clayton Act and “Control” in Bank Holding Company Regulation
    • United States
    • Antitrust Bulletin Nbr. 18-4, December 1973
    • December 1, 1973
    ...Corp., 392 U.S. 134 (1968); United States v. Timken RoUerBearing Co., 341 U.S. 593 (1951); Kiefer.StewartCo.v. Jos. E.Seagram &Sons, Inc., 340 U.S. 211 (1951); United States v. YellowCab Co., 332 U.S. 218 (1947); AmericanTobaccoCo. v. United States,328 U.S. 781 (1946); Minnesota Bearing Co.......
  • United States Law and the Proposed Code of Conduct on the Transfer of Technology
    • United States
    • Antitrust Bulletin Nbr. 23-4, December 1978
    • December 1, 1978
    ...and control does not liberate corpo-rations from the impact of the antitrust laws." Kiefer-StewartCo.v. Joseph E. Seagram and Sons, Inc., 340 U.S. 211(1951); 884 THE ANTITRUST BULLETINPerma Life Mufflers, Inc., et al. v. International PartsCorp.,392 U.S. 134(1968).In a number of cases invol......
  • Section 1 of The Sherman Act
    • United States
    • ABA Antitrust Library Model Jury Instructions in Civil Antitrust Cases
    • December 8, 2016
    ...whether the prices agreed upon were high or low or reasonable or unreasonable. NOTES See Kiefer-Stewart Co. v. Joseph E. Seagram & Sons, 340 U.S. 211, 213 (1951) (maximum and minimum price fixing); United States v. Line Material Co., 333 U.S. 287 (1948) (the reasonableness or unreasonablene......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT