Fruit Growers' Express, Inc. v. Federal Trade Commission
| Decision Date | 16 June 1921 |
| Docket Number | 2857. |
| Citation | 274 F. 205 |
| Parties | FRUIT GROWERS' EXPRESS INCORPORATED v. FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit |
Chas J. Faulkner, Jr., H. K. Crafts, and R. F. Feagans, all of Chicago, Ill., for petitioner.
E. C Alvord, of Washington, D.C., for respondent.
Before BAKER, EVANS, and PAGE, Circuit Judges.
This is an original petition filed in this court under the provisions of section 11 of the Act of October, 15, 1914, 38 U.S.Stats.at L.p. 730 (Comp. St. Sec. 8835j), commonly known as the Clayton Act, to obtain a review of an order to cease and desist, entered by the Federal Trade Commission (here known as respondent) against Fruit Growers' Express (here known as petitioner).
In 1919 respondent filed its complaint, charging that petitioner had made a contract with certain railroads containing the following clause, alleged to be in violation of section 3 of the Clayton Act (Comp. St. Sec. 8835c):
'The railroad shall use the car line's equipment exclusively in the movement of fruits and vegetables under refrigeration in carloads from points on the lines of railway owned or operated by the railroad during the life of this contract.' A motion to dismiss was denied, and petitioner answered, admitting the correctness of the above quotation, but saying that the exclusive clause was made in consideration of and depended upon other covenants on the part of petitioner. The answer also denied the alleged violation of the Clayton Act, jurisdiction in respondent, and urged the absence of necessary parties.
By the contract, the car company was to do the following things: Furnish, to be parked and distributed, required number of suitable refrigerator cars to carry all fruit tendered; furnish men, icing stations, and ice, to keep cars iced to destination; keep cars in good repair; load and strip cars and furnish additional refrigeration under stated condition; furnish cars for points on foreign lines; hold itself accountable for failure to furnish cars required, properly iced, and for improper or faulty condition of the cars; keep an inspector at South Rocky Mount.
After a hearing, respondent made findings of fact, from which it reached and expressed the following conclusion with reference to the exclusive clause in the contract:
'The effect of such condition * * * may be to substantially lessen competition and tend to create a monopoly in the transportation of fresh fruits and vegetables under refrigeration in the territory served by the several lines of railroad mentioned, * * * and that the use of such conditions is in violation of section 3 of an act of Congress approved October 15, 1914. * * * '
Thereupon respondent entered the order here complained of, which was, in substance, that petitioner cease and desist from making any new contract containing that exclusive clause and from enforcing it in existing contracts.
Authority to enforce compliance with section 3 of the Clayton Act is...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
National Federation of Blind v. F.T.C.
...Otherwise, it would have written the USA PATRIOT amendments differently. 4. Plaintiffs' reliance on Fruit Growers' Express Inc. v. Federal Trade Commission, 274 F. 205 (7th Cir.1921) is misplaced. In that case, the FTC entered a cease and desist order against equipment suppliers, claiming t......
-
Official Airline Guides, Inc. v. F. T. C.
...denied, 411 U.S. 932, 93 S.Ct. 1901, 36 L.Ed.2d 392 (1973). The only case that petitioner really has to go on is Fruit Growers' Express Inc. v. FTC, 274 F. 205 (7th Cir. 1921), cert. dismissed, 261 U.S. 629, 43 S.Ct. 518, 67 L.Ed. 835 (1923). In that case the Commission had issued a cease a......
-
Automatic Canteen Co. v. Federal Trade Commission
...affecting them in their absence. On this point petitioner relies on two decisions of this court, Fruit Growers' Express, Inc., v. Federal Trade Commission, 7 Cir., 274 F. 205 (certiorari granted, 257 U.S. 627, 42 S.Ct. 56, 66 L.Ed. 405, and dismissed by stipulation on motion of the Solicito......
-
Sinclair Refining Co. v. F.T.C.
...276 F. 686 SINCLAIR REFINING CO. v. FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION. [1] No. 2838.United States ... 3. In ... this case, as in the Fruit Growers' Express Case, 274 F ... 205, decided ... ...