George Van Camp Sons Co v. American Can Co
Decision Date | 02 January 1929 |
Docket Number | No. 94,94 |
Citation | 73 L.Ed. 311,49 S.Ct. 112,278 U.S. 245,60 A.L.R. 1060 |
Parties | GEORGE VAN CAMP & SONS CO. v. AMERICAN CAN CO. et al. * |
Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Messrs. Solon J. Carter and Frederick E. Matson, both of Indianapolis, Ind., for George Van Camp & Sons Co.
[Argument of Counsel from page 246 intentionally omitted] Messrs. Wm. H. Thompson, of Indianapolis, Ind., and Lemuel A. Welles, of New York City, for American Can Co.
Mr. Henry H. Hornbrook, of Indianapolis, Ind., for Van Camp Packing Co., Inc.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 247-248 intentionally omitted] Mr. Justice SUTHERLAND delivered the opinion of the Court.
This suit was brought in the federal District Court for the District of Indiana to enjoin violations of section 2 of the Clayton Act. 38 Stat. 730, c. 323; U. S. Code, tit. 15, § 13 (15 USCA § 13). From a decree dismissing the bill for want of equity, an appeal was taken to the court below. Under section 239 of the Judicial Code as amended (U. S. Code, tit. 28, § 346), that court has certified the following questions concerning which instructions are desired for the proper disposition of the cause:
'Question 1. Does section 2 of the 'Clayton Act' (United States Code, title 15, section 13) have application to cases of price discrimination, the effect of which may be to substantially lessen competition, or tend to create a monopoly, not in the line of commerce wherein the discriminator is engaged, but in the line of commerce in which the vendee of the discriminator is engaged?
The relevant facts upon which the questions are based are set forth as follows:
'The bill charges that appellant, George Van Camp & Sons Company, is engaged, interstate, in the business of packing and selling food products in tin cans, and that appellee Van Camp Packing Company is engaged in the same business, and is a competitor of appellant, and that appellee American Can Company manufactures, in very great quantities, and sells, interstate, to food packers, tin cans used in the food packing industry, and owns the monopoly for certain machines which are necessary for sealing the cans of its manufacture, and that it sells such cans in large quantities to appellant and to appellee Van Camp Packing Company, and leases to them its machines for sealing these cans.
'That the American Can Company is unlawfully discriminating between different purchasers of its commodities, in that the price at which it offered and offers and sold and sells its said cans to appellee Van Camp Packing Company is 20 per cent. below its publicly announced standard prices and the prices at which it contracted to sell and did and does sell its cans of the same kind to appellant, George Van Camp & Sons Company; that the American Can Company furnishes food packers, including appellant, its machines necessary for sealing its said cans at a fixed rental, and furnishes the same machines to the Van Camp Packing Company free of charge; that the American Can Company paid and pays the Van Camp Packing Company large sums of money by way of bonus, discounts, and reductions from the price of cans fixed in contracts between them, none of such bonus, discounts, or reductions being allowed or paid to appellant; and that these discriminations were and are not made on account of differences in grade, quality, or quantity of the commodity sold, nor of the machines leased, nor on account of any difference in the cost of selling or transportation, nor made in good faith to meet competition.
'That the effect of such discrimination is to substantially lessen competition, and tends to create a monopoly in the line of interstate commerce, in which the appellant, George Van Camp & Sons Company, and the appellee Van Camp Packing Company are both engaged, namely, the packing and selling of food products in tin cans.
'There is no allegation in the bill that the discriminations complained of tended to create a monopoly or substantially lessen competition in the line of commerce in which the appellee American Can Company is engaged.
'On separate motions of the several appellees on the ground that said section 2 of the Clayton Act is addressed only to discriminations in price the effect of which may be to substantially lessen competition, or tend to create a monopoly in the business in which the discriminator is engaged, the District Court dismissed the bill for want of equity, and the appeal is from the decree of dismissal.'
Section 2, copied in the margin,1 provides that it shall be unlawful for any person engaged in commerce, in the course of such commerce, to discriminate in price between different purchasers * * * where the effect of such discrimination may be to substantially lessen competition or tend to create a monopoly in any line of commerce. As applied to the present case, the word 'commerce' as there used means interstate commerce. Clayton...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Tampa Electric Company v. Nashville Coal Company
...To the same effect is Anchor Serum Co. v. Federal Trade Commission, 7 Cir., 217 F.2d 867, 870; George Van Camp & Sons v. American Can Co., 278 U.S. 245, 253-254, 49 S.Ct. 112, 73 L.Ed. 311. See also: Ohio Power Co. v. N. L. R. B., 6 Cir., 176 F.2d 385, 387, 11 A.L.R.2d 243, certiorari denie......
-
United States v. Du Pont De Nemours and Company
...finishes and fabrics12 to make them a 'line of commerce' within the meaning of the Clayton Act. Cf. Van Camp & Sons Co. v. American Can Co., 278 U.S. 245, 49 S.Ct. 112, 13 L.Ed. 311.13 Thus, the bounds of the relevant market for the purposes of this case are not coextensive with the total m......
-
Nebbia v. People of State of New York, 531
...& Lewis, 240 U.S. 342, 36 S.Ct. 370, 60 L.Ed. 679, L.R.A. 1917A, 421, Ann. Cas. 1917B, 455. 32 Van Camp & Sons v. American Can Co., 278 U.S. 245, 49 S.Ct. 112, 73 L.Ed. 311, 60 A.L.R. 1060. 33 State statutes: Smiley v. Kansas, 196 U.S. 447, 25 S.Ct. 289, 49 L.Ed. 546; National Cotton Oil Co......
-
City of Atlanta v. National Bituminous Coal Com'n
...Relations Act of 1935, 49 Stat. 449, 29 U.S.C.A. § 151 et seq. (Supp.1938). 11 See also, George Van Camp & Sons Co. v. American Can Co., 278 U.S. 245, 49 S.Ct. 112, 73 L.Ed. 311, 60 A.L.R. 1060 (action under Clayton Act prohibiting discrimination in price between different purchasers); Bidd......
-
Has the Supreme Court really turned RICO upside down?: an examination of NOW v. Scheidler.
...v. Griffiths, 318 U.S. 371 (1943); Louis K. Liggett Co. v. Lee, 288 U.S. 517 (1933); George Van Camp & Sons Co. v. American Can Co., 278 U.S. 245 (1929); Myers v. United States, 272 U.S. 52 (1926); Yu Cong Eng v. Trinidad, 271 U.S. 500 (213)Reves v. Ernst & Young, 113 S. Ct. 1163 (1......
-
Towards a More Reasoned Application of the Robinson-Patman Act
...Smith W. Brockhart, of Iowa, and approved May 5, 1928, calling for an extensive chain-storeinquiry by the Federal Trade Commission.16 10. 278 U.S. 245 (1929).11. Id. at 113–14.12. FTC, CHAIN STORES: SOURCES OF CHAIN-STORE MERCHANDISE, S. DOC. NO. 30, 72D CONG., 1ST SESS. (1932) at 97 (quote......
-
Public Price Fixing and Due Process
...15, 1914) , Robin-son-Patman Act (June 16, 1936), 15 U. S. CodeSec. 13 and supplement. See George Van Camp& Sons v. American Can Co., 278 U. S. 245(1929); "Price Discrimination and Price Cut-ting," Law and Contemporary Problems, June1937. at SAGE PUBLICATIONS on November 29, 2012ann.sagepub......