Federal Trade Commission v. Reed, 11839.
| Decision Date | 20 May 1957 |
| Docket Number | No. 11839.,11839. |
| Citation | 243 F.2d 308 |
| Parties | FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION, Petitioner-Appellee, v. William T. REED, President, Reed Candy Company, Respondent-Appellant. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit |
David A. Canel, Chicago, Ill., Leonard A. Canel, Jay A. Canel, Chicago, Ill., of counsel, for appellant.
Robert B. Dawkins, Asst. Gen. Counsel, Federal Trade Commission, Earl W. Kintner, Gen. Counsel, John T. Loughlin, Washington, D. C., for appellee.
Before DUFFY, Chief Judge, and LINDLEY and SWAIM, Circuit Judges.
This appeal questions the power of the Federal Trade Commission to issue subpoenas duces tecum in proceedings before the Commission on a complaint charging violation of the Clayton Act, as amended.
On November 21, 1955, the Federal Trade Commission ("F.T.C.") issued a complaint charging the Reed Candy Company with violation of Section 2(d) of the Clayton Act, as amended, 49 Stat. 1526, 15 U.S.C.A. § 13(d). The proceeding was duly assigned to an examiner of the F.T.C. for hearing and initial decision. The examiner, on February 20, 1956, caused a subpoena duces tecum to be served on William T. Reed, as President of the Reed Candy Company, directing him to appear and testify before the F.T.C. and to produce certain documentary evidence described in the subpoena. Reed's motion to quash the subpoena was denied by the examiner and on appeal to the F.T.C. the examiner's ruling was affirmed. On April 4, 1956, another subpoena was issued which was identical in all respects with the first except that the date for the hearing was set for April 11, 1956. Reed did not appear at the April 11 hearing, but his counsel was present and he explained that Reed's refusal to obey the subpoena was upon the advice of counsel that the F.T.C. lacked subpoena power in proceedings under the Clayton Act.
On May 7, 1956, the F.T.C. filed an application in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, for an order requiring Reed to comply with the subpoena. The District Court ordered Reed to appear and show cause why the application should not be granted. After answer to the application of the F.T.C. and a hearing on the matter the District Court, on June 12, 1956, entered an order directing compliance by Reed with the subpoena. From that order Reed has taken this appeal.
The arguments of the parties may be briefly summarized as follows: Reed contends that the Clayton Act, 38 Stat. 730, as amended, 15 U.S.C.A. §§ 12-27, prescribes a self-contained procedure for the enforcement of its provisions and does not contain a substantive grant of subpoena power. The F.T.C. contends that the subpoena and investigational powers granted it by the Federal Trade Commission Act, 38 Stat. 717, as amended, 15 U.S.C.A. §§ 41-46 and 47-58, may properly be used in the discharge of the F. T.C.'s duties under the Clayton Act, as amended. This question has recently been the subject of decision in the district courts. Federal Trade Commission v. Menzies, D.C.Md., 145 F.Supp. 164 ( for the F.T.C.); and Federal Trade Commission v. Rubin, S.D.N.Y., 145 F.Supp. 171 ( against the F.T.C.).
During the pendency of this appeal the Menzies decision has been reviewed and affirmed by the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, per Judge John J. Parker, ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
FTC v. Guignon
...605 (2d Cir.) (U.S. Attorney appeared with FTC.), cert. denied, 354 U.S. 925, 77 S.Ct. 1379, 1 L.Ed.2d 1436 (1957); Federal Trade Commission v. Reed, 243 F.2d 308 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 355 U.S. 823, 78 S.Ct. 29, 2 L. Ed.2d 37 (1957); F. T. C. v. Green, 252 F.Supp. 153 (S.D.N.Y.1966); F.......
-
U.S. v. Papercraft Corp., 75-2052
...in pari materia. Federal Trade Comm'n v. Cement Institute, 333 U.S. 683, 690, 68 S.Ct. 793, 92 L.Ed. 1010 (1948); Federal Trade Comm'n v. Reed, 243 F.2d 308 (7th Cir. 1957). Thus, maximum penalties of $10,000 per day are available as contended for by the 393 F.Supp. at 417-18 (footnotes omi......
-
FTC v. Hunt Foods and Industries, Inc., 732-59.
...See, Federal Trade Commission v. Cement Institute, 1948, 333 U.S. 683, 689-693, 68 S.Ct. 793, 92 L.Ed. 1009; Federal Trade Commission v. Reed, 7 Cir., 1957, 243 F. 2d 308, 309; Federal Trade Commission v. Tuttle, supra, note 11, 244 F.2d at pages 13 15 U.S.C.A. § 46(a) and (b). 14 15 U.S.C.......
-
Hunt Foods and Industries, Inc. v. FTC
...but also extends to proceedings under the Clayton Act. Federal Trade Commission v. Tuttle, 2 Cir., 244 F.2d 605, 610; Federal Trade Commission v. Reed, 7 Cir., 243 F.2d 308. Hunt does not question the scope of section 3 of the Federal Trade Commission Act, as analyzed above, in authorizing ......