Ellis v. Inman, Poulsen & Co.
| Decision Date | 06 June 1904 |
| Docket Number | 1,000. |
| Parties | ELLIS v. INMAN, POULSEN & CO. et al. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
The plaintiff in error brought an action against the defendants in error under the provisions of the act of Congress of July 2, 1890, c. 647, 26 Stat. 209 (U.S.Comp.St. 1901, p. 3200) entitled 'An act to protect trade and commerce against unlawful restraints and monopolies,' to recover damages resulting from a combination of the defendants in error to prevent him from purchasing lumber in the city of Vancouver Wash., to be used in the city of Portland, Or. The substantial averments of the complaint are as follows: That the plaintiff in error is engaged in the business of constructing houses and other buildings in the city of Portland and selling the same for his customers; that the defendants in error are engaged in the business of manufacturing and selling both rough lumber and seasoned or kiln-dried lumber at Portland, Or., and that they are the only manufacturers of such lumber in or adjacent to said city who sell lumber therein; that there are persons engaged in the business of manufacturing and selling rough lumber at the city of Vancouver and at other points in the state of Washington, and that, until interfered with with by the acts and combination of the defendants in error, the plaintiff in error could and did purchase at and import from the city of Vancouver large quantities of lumber for use in his business at Portland; that, in order to carry on his said business, it is necessary for him to purchase and use large quantities both of rough lumber and of seasoned or kiln-dried lumber that the mills at Vancouver produce only rough lumber, and that the seasoned or kiln-dried lumber required by the plaintiff in his business can only be procured from the defendants in error, and he is absolutely dependent upon them for his supply thereof; that on July 2, 1902, the other defendants in error organized the defendant City Retail Lumber Company, and for the purpose and with the intent of creating a monopoly of the manufacture and sale of lumber for local use in the markets of the city of Portland, and of controlling and restricting the output of lumber from defendants' said mills, and fixing and controlling the price of lumber in said Portland market, and arbitrarily advancing said price and demanding and receiving excessive and unreasonable prices for the lumber by the said manufacturers in the state of Washington from said state to city of Portland, and preventing the sale in the city of Portland of lumber manufactured in the state of Washington and preventing the plaintiff in error and all other contractors and builders in Portland from purchasing lumber from any dealers other than the defendants, and particularly from said manufacturers in the state of Washington, did conspire, confederate, and agree together that they would sell lumber in the Portland market only through said City Retail Lumber Company at prices to be fixed by it and to persons to be designated and approved by it; that thereafter the entire sales of lumber in the Portland market from all the defendants in error were placed in the control of said City Retail Lumber Company at prices to be fixed by it and to persons to be designated and approved by it; that thereafter the entire sales of lumber in the Portland market from all the defendants in error were placed in the control of said City Retail Lumber Company for the purpose and with the intent of preventing the plaintiff in error and other contractors and builders in Portland from purchasing lumber from said manufacturers in the state of Washington, and that the defendants in error further conspired and agreed to adopt such means and prescribe and enforce such burdens and penalties as might be necessary to carry out said purpose and thereby enable them to fix a price on lumber in the city of Portland, and control the output and sales of lumber therein; that to carry out said purposes the defendants in error have employed agents to watch the construction of all buildings in the city of Portland, and ascertain the sources from which lumber used therein is procured, and to report to the City Retail Lumber Company all buildings for the construction of which any lumber was procured from said manufacturers in the state of Washington, and that upon such report the defendants in error would refuse to supply any lumber upon any terms to such contractor, builder, or other consumer who purchased any lumber for use in Portland from said manufacturers in the state of Washington, and have refused to sell any lumber to such contractor, builder, or other consumer, except upon the condition that he pay them, in addition to the price charged by them for lumber required from them, the difference between the price he paid for the lumber so purchased in the state of Washington and the price then charged by them for the same quantity of similar lumber, and the further condition that he promise them to purchase no more lumber from said manufacturers in the state of Washington, and that in all cases where the contractor, builder, or other consumer had procured a sufficient supply of rough lumber from manufacturers other than the defendants in error, and bought from manufacturers in the state of Washington, the defendants in error have refused to sell any finished, seasoned, or kiln-dried lumber to such contractor, builder, or other consumer, except upon his making such payment and such promise; that by these means the defendants in error have compelled all contractors and builders in Portland to cease buying lumber from the mills in the state of Washington, and have been enabled to and do control the output of lumber sold in the market in Portland, and have fixed extortionate prices therefor; that in March, 1903, in the course of his business, the plaintiff in error purchased from a manufacturer in Vancouver, Wash., and had shipped to and delivered to him at Portland, a large quantity of rough lumber at a price of $250 less than was then charged by the defendants in error for the same quantity of like lumber in Portland, and the plaintiff used the same in the construction of buildings; that on March 20, 1903, he required for use in the construction of said buildings large quantities of finished and seasoned or kiln-dried lumber, and was and has been unable to procure the same from any manufacturer or dealer other than the defendants in error, and that on or about that date he applied to the defendants in error to purchase such lumber, to wit about 7,000 feet of flooring, about 7,000 feet of ceiling, and about 9,000 feet of rustic, which lumber was so needed by him in his business, and offered to pay them therefor the regular price charged by them for the same, but that because of his purchase of lumber at Vancouver, Wash., the defendants in error refused to sell him said or any lumber upon any terms, and so refused for a period of two months, and still refuse, unless the plaintiff in error pay them, in addition to the prices charged by them for the lumber which he wished to purchase from them, the sum of $250, the difference between the price he paid for lumber in Vancouver and the price they charged for the same quantity and quality at Portland, and unless, in addition thereto, he promise them in the future to purchase no lumber from any manufacturer or dealer in the state of Washington; that the plaintiff in error refused to comply with said conditions, and was unable to procure any lumber from the defendants in error; that at all the times mentioned in the complaint the defendants in error have had on hand and for sale in the city of Portland ample supplies of lumber of the quantity and kinds that the plaintiff in error required, and during all said time the plaintiff in error has been ready and able and has offered to pay therefor the regular prices charged by the defendants in error, but they have so refused to sell the same in pursuance and furtherance of their conspiracy, and for the purposes and with the intent above stated, and for the reason that the plaintiff in error had purchased lumber from said manufacturers in the city of Vancouver, and for the purpose and with the intent of preventing him from purchasing lumber from said manufacturers in the city of Vancouver and forcing him to purchase the same from the defendants in error, and for the purpose of punishing and injuring him for having made such purchase in Vancouver, and not for any other reasons. The plaintiff in error alleged that he was damaged in the sum of $7,000 through his inability to continue his business and through loss of profit on his business during the building season of 1903, and the loss of custom and good will of his said business; in the sum...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bedford Cut Stone Co v. Journeyman Stone Cutters Ass of North America, 412
...298, November 22, 1926; Duplex Co. v. Deering, 254 U. S. 443, 468, 41 S. Ct. 172, 65 L. Ed. 349, 16 A. L. R. 196; Ellis v. Inman, Poulsen & Co. (C. C. A.) 131 F. 182, 186. The case, therefore, is controlled, not by United Mine Workers v. Coronado Co., supra, and United Leather Workers v. He......
-
Knight & Jillson Co. v. Miller
... ... States, supra ; Burrows v ... Interborough, etc., Co. (1907), 156 F. 389; ... Ellis v. Inman Poulsen & Co. (1904), ... 131 F. 182, 65 C. C. A. 488; Thomas v ... Cincinnati, ... ...
-
The State ex inf. Hadley v. Standard Oil Co.
... ... 700; Richardson v. Buhl, 77 Mich. 632; Nestor v ... Brewing Co., 161 Pa. St. 473; Ellis v. Inman ... Co., 131 F. 182; Builders' Assn. v ... Niezwoski, 95 Wis. 129; Coal Co. v. Coal ... ...
-
United States v. Heating, Piping & Air C. Contr. Ass'n
...commerce, violation exists. See W. W. Montague & Co. v. Lowry, 1904, 193 U.S. 38, 24 S.Ct. 307, 48 L.Ed. 608; Ellis v. Inman, Poulsen Co., 9 Cir., 1904, 131 F. 182, 183; Swift & Co. v. United States, 1905, 196 U.S. 375, 25 S.Ct. 276, 49 L.Ed. 518; Steers v. United States, 6 Cir., 1911, 192 ......