Isbrandtsen Co. v. United States
| Decision Date | 20 December 1948 |
| Citation | 81 F. Supp. 544 |
| Parties | ISBRANDTSEN CO., Inc. v. UNITED STATES et al. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York |
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
John J. O'Connor and William L. McGovern, both of Washington, D. C., for plaintiff.
John F. X. McGohey, of New York City, Walter K. Bennett, Sp. Asst. to the Atty. Gen., Antitrust Division, and Joseph E. McDowell, Sp. Asst. to the Atty. Gen., for the United States.
Paul D. Page, Jr., and George F. Galland, both of Washington, D. C., for U. S. Maritime Commission.
Burlingham, Veeder, Clark & Hupper, of New York City (Roscoe H. Hupper, of New York City, of counsel), for defendant carriers.
Tompkins, Boal & Tompkins, of New York City (Arthur M. Boal, of New York City, of counsel), for Lykes Bros. Steamship Co., Inc.
Before FRANK, Circuit Judge, and RIFKIND and KAUFMAN, District Judges.
We are all in agreement that a temporary injunction should issue to maintain the status quo pending further proceedings to adjudicate the legality of the Conference agreements and the action contemplated pursuant thereto.
It may be that the "exclusive patronage" provisions are prohibited by 46 U.S.C.A. § 8122 and that the Commission is powerless to approve such provisions under 46 U.S.C.A. § 814. Very considerable doubt upon such a holding is thrown by Swayne & Hoyt, Ltd., v. U. S., 1937, 300 U.S. 297, 306, 307 and note 3, 57 S.Ct. 478, 81 L.Ed. 659, and by the legislative history of the statute, H.R.Doc. No. 805, 63rd Cong., 2nd Sess., 1914, 287-292.
But we need not decide that question now. The statute is not very explicit in its provision of an administrative remedy. It does, however, provide, 46 U.S. C.A. § 814, that the Commission may cancel or modify any agreement "* * * whether or not previously approved by it * * *", and for fifteen years the Commission has followed a procedure for reviewing on its own motion, Pacific Coast European Conference Agreement, 1948, 3 U.S.M.C. 11, and for hearing complaints concerning agreements previously approved by it. Cf. Olsen v. Blue Star Line, Ltd., 1941, 2 U.S.M.C. 529; Rawleigh v. Stoomvart, 1933, 1 U.S.S.B. 285. That procedure has not yet been availed of by plaintiff. We should not at this stage pass on the validity of the agreements before the Commission, in accordance with its established procedure, has had an opportunity to pass thereon in an adversary proceeding.
But were the defendant carriers to institute their exclusive patronage system pending the Commission's decision upon such a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Arrow Transportation Company v. Southern Railway Company, 430
...311 (C.A.9th Cir., 1950); West India Fruit & Steamship Co. v. Seatrain Lines, 170 F.2d 775 (C.A.2d Cir., 1948); Isbrandtsen v. United States, 81 F.Supp. 544 (D.C.S.D.N.Y.1948). Moreover, whenever Congress wanted to oust the jurisdiction of the courts it not only knew how to do it but did so......
-
In re Grand Jury Investigation of the Shipping Industry
...on the cases of River Plate and Brazil Conferences v. Pressed Steel Car Co., 2 Cir., 1955, 227 F.2d 60 and Isbrandtsen Co. v. United States, D.C.S.D. N.Y.1948, 81 F.Supp. 544, appeal dismissed A/S J. Ludwig Mowinckels Rederi v. Isbrandtsen Co., 336 U.S. 941, 69 S. Ct. 813, 93 L.Ed. 1099. Th......
-
Federal Maritime Com'n v. Atlantic & Gulf/Panama Can. Zone
...opinion per Clark, J.); Note, Interim Injunctive Relief Pending Administrative Determination, supra. See also Isbrandtsen Co. v. United States, 81 F.Supp. 544, 547 (S.D.N.Y.1948), appeal dismissed, Rederi v. Isbrandtsen Co., 336 U.S. 941, 69 S.Ct. 813, 93 L.Ed. 1099 Even more persuasive, ho......
-
Isbrandtsen Co. v. United States
...1042. 28 United States v. Socony-Vacuum Oil Co., 1940, 310 U.S. 150, 218, 60 S.Ct. 811, 84 L.Ed. 1129. 29 Isbrandtsen Co. v. United States, D.C. S.D.N.Y.1948, 81 F.Supp. 544, 546, appeal dismissed, Rederi v. Isbrandtsen Co., 1949, 336 U.S. 941, 69 S.Ct. 813, 93 L. Ed. 1099; Apgar Travel Age......