Federal Trade Commission v. Western Meat Co Thatcher Mfg Co v. Federal Trade Commission Swift Co v. Same
Decision Date | 23 November 1926 |
Docket Number | No. 231,No. 96,No. 213,96,213,231 |
Citation | 71 L.Ed. 405,47 S.Ct. 175,272 U.S. 554 |
Parties | FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION v. WESTERN MEAT CO. THATCHER MFG. CO. v. FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION. SWIFT & CO. v. SAME |
Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Mr. Adrien F. Busick, of Washington, D. C., and The Attorney General, for petitioner in No. 96 and for respondent in Nos. 213 and 231.
Messrs. Edward Barry, of Bloomington, Ill., and J. F. Sullivan, of San Francisco, Cal., for respondent in No. 96.
Messrs. James M. Sheean, Albert H. Veeder, and Henry Veeder, all of Chicago, Ill., for petitioner in No. 231.
Messrs. Herbert Knox Smith, of Hartford, Conn., and Charles Henry Butler, of Washington, D. C., for petitioner in No. 213.
[Argument of Counsel from page 555 intentionally omitted] Mr. Justice McREYNOLDS delivered the opinion of the Court.
I. These causes necessitate consideration of the power of the Federal Trade Commission, where it finds that one corporation has acquired shares of a competitor contrary to the inhibition of the Clayton Act, approved October 15, 1914, c. 323, 38 Stat. 730, 731. That act provides:
'No corporation shall acquire, directly or indirectly, the whole or any part of the stock or other share capital of two or more corporations engaged in commerce where the effect of such acquisition, or the use of such stock by the voting or granting of proxies or otherwise, may be to substantially lessen competition between such corporations, or any of them, whose stock or other share capital is so acquired, or to restrain such commerce in any section or community, or tend to create a monopoly of any line of commerce. * * *' Comp. St. § 8835g.
Section 8 (Comp. St. § 8835h) forbids interlocking directors.
* * *'Comp. St. § 8835j.
Section 5 of the Act to Create a Federal Trade Commission, approval September 26, 1914, c. 311, 38 Stat. 717, 719 (Comp. St. § 8836e), declares unfair methods of competition in commerce unlawful, prescribes the procedure to be followed, and gives the Commission power to require an offending party to cease and desist from such methods. This section is not presently important; the challenged orders sought to enforce obedience to section 7 of the Clayton Act.
II. No. 96. The Western Meat Company, a California corporation, and the Nevada Packing Company, of Nevada, were interstate competitors engaged in manufacturing, selling and distributing meat products. December 30, 1916, the former purchased all stock of the latter and has continued to hold it. In a proceeding begun November 24, 1919, the Commission found such purchase and con- tinued ownership contrary to law and entered an order directing—
That the respondent, Western Meat Company, shall forthwith cease and desist from violating the provisions of section 5 of said Act of Congress approved September 26, 1914, entitled 'An act to create a Federal Trade Commission, to define its powers and duties, and for other purposes,' and also the provisions of section 7 of said Act of Congress approved October 15, 1914, entitled 'An act to supplement existing laws against unlawful restraints and monopolies, and for other purposes,' and particularly to so divest itself absolutely of all capital stock of the Nevada Packing Company as to include in such divestment the Nevada Packing Company's plant and all property necessary to the conduct and operation thereof as a complete, going packing plant and organization, and so as to neither directly or indirectly retain any of the fruits of the acquisition of the capital stock of said Nevada Packing Company, a corporation.
That in such divestment, no stock or property above mentioned to be divested shall be sold or transferred, directly or indirectly, to any stockholder, officer, director, employee, or agent of, or anyone otherwise directly or indirectly connected with or under the control or influence of, respondent or any of its officers, directors or stockholders or the officers, directors, or stockholders of any of respondent's subsidiaries or affiliated companies.
The court below held this order went beyond the Commission's authority and directed that it be modified by eliminating 'the injunction against the acquisition by the petitioner of the plant and property of the Nevada Packing Company.'
Respondent maintains that the Commission's authority is strictly limited by the statute, and that where there has been an unlawful purchase of stock it can do no more than enter 'an order requiring such person to cease and desist from such violations and divest itself of the stock held'; also, that the Commission has no power to prevent or annul the purchase of a competitor's plant and business, as distinguished from stock therein. Wilder Manufacturing Co. v. Corn Products Refining Co., 236 U. S. 165, 174, 35 S. Ct. 398, 59 L. Ed. 520, Ann. Cas. 1916A, 118; Federal Trade Commission v. Beech-Nut Packing Co., 257 U. S. 441, 453, 42 S. Ct. 150, 66 L. Ed. 307, 19 A. L. R. 882; Federal Trade Commission v. Sinclair Refining Co., 261 U. S. 463, 475, 43 S. Ct. 450, 67 L. Ed. 746-are relied upon.
Without doubt the Commission may not go beyond the words of the statute properly construed, but they must be read in the light of its general purpose and applied with a view to effectuate such purpose. Preservation of established competition was the great end which the Legislature sought to secure.
The order here questioned was entered when respondent actually held and owned the stock contrary to law. The Commission's duty was to prevent the continuance of this unlawful action by an order directing that it cease and desist therefrom and divest itself of what it had no right to hold. Further violations of the act through continued ownership could be effectively prevented only by requiring the owner wholly to divest itself of the stock and thus render possible once more free play of the competition which had been wrongfully suppressed. The purpose which the lawmakers entertained might be wholly defeated if the stock could be further used for securing the competitor's property. And the same result would follow a transfer to one controlled by or acting for the respondent.
Although the respondent held all the capital stock, the plant and other property of the Nevada Packing Company had not been acquired. The Commission directed that it so divest itself of all...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
United States v. Du Pont De Nemours and Company
...something. But I find no evidence that what they did add included vertical acquisitions. 12. Federal Trade Commission v. Western Meat Co., 272 U.S. 554, 561, 47 S.Ct. 175, 178, 71 L.Ed. 405. 13. It might be argued that the mention of subsequent misuse in the third paragraph of § 7, the inve......
-
United States v. Columbia Steel Co
...a purchase of stock of a competing company. See § 7, Clayton Act, 38 Stat. 730, 731, 15 U.S.C.A. § 18; Federal Trade Comm. v. Western Meat Co., 272 U.S. 554, 47 S.Ct. 175, 71 L.Ed. 405. It must be assumed, however, that the public policy announced by § 7 of the Clayton Act is to be taken in......
-
Electric Bond & Share Co. v. SECURITIES AND EXCH. COM'N
...public. Cf. New York Central Securities Corp. v. United States, 287 U.S. 12, 53 S.Ct. 45, 77 L.Ed. 138; Federal Trade Comm. v. Western Meat Co., 272 U. S. 554, 47 S.Ct. 175, 71 L.Ed. 405. Therefore, if a holding company obstructs the conduct of interstate commerce in contravention of polici......
-
Brown Shoe Co v. United States
...Arrow-Hart & Hegeman Electric Co. v. Federal Trade Comm., 291 U.S. 587, 54 S.Ct. 532, 78 L.Ed. 1007; Federal Trade Comm. v. Western Meat Co., 272 U.S. 554, 47 S.Ct. 175, 71 L.Ed. 405. See also United States v. Celanese Corp., 91 F.Supp. 14 (D.C.S.D.N.Y.); 1 F.T.C. 541—542; 33 Op.Atty.Gen. 2......
-
Overview of the Applicable U.S. Antitrust Laws
...Philadelphia Nat’l Bank , 374 U.S. at 337-39; Arrow-Hart & Hegeman Elec. Co. v. FTC, 291 U.S. 587, 595 (1934); FTC v. Western Meat Co., 272 U.S. 554, 561 (1926); Celanese Corp. , 91 F. Supp. at 15-17. 17 . See Philadelphia Nat’l Bank , 374 U.S. at 339-40. 4 Mergers and Acquisitions merger t......
-
Table of Cases
...2006 WL 3302862 (D.D.C. Oct. 23, 2006) ................................................................. 205 FTC v. Western Meat Co . , 272 U.S. 554 (1926) ................................... 6 FTC v. Weyerhaeuser Co., 665 F.2d 1072 (D.C. Cir. 1981) ...............................................
-
MONOPOLIZING DIGITAL COMMERCE.
...Act, ch. 323, [section] 7, 38 Stat. 731-32 (1914) (current version at 15 U.S.C. [section] 18). (378.) See, e.g., FTC v. W. Meat Co., 272 U.S. 554, 561 (1926) (holding that [section] 7 did not apply to asset (379.) See N. Sec. Co. v. United States, 193 U.S. 197, 327 (1904) ("This combination......
-
Table of Cases
...742 F.2d 1156 (9th Cir. 1984) (per curiam), 61, 97, 101, 106, 204, 283, 284, 482, 499, 501, 517, 521, 523, 524, FTC v. Western Meat Co., 272 U.S. 554 (1926), 3 FTC v. Weyerhaeuser Co., 665 F.2d 1072 (D.C. Cir. 1981), 505, 521, 522, 523, 524, 528, 530, 531, 532, 541 FTC v. Whole Foods Mkt., ......