Johns-Pratt Co. v. Sachs Co.

• Decision Date: 04 March 1910
• Docket Number: 1,305,1,306.
• Citation: 176 F. 738
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Connecticut
• Parties: JOHNS-PRATT CO. v. SACHS CO. et al.

176 F. 738

JOHNS-PRATT CO. v. SACHS CO. et al.

Nos. 1,305, 1,306.

United States Circuit Court, D. Connecticut.

March 4, 1910

The following is one of the paragraphs of the answer:

'(15) And these defendants, further answering on information and belief, say: That since November 14, 1905, and in or about the year 1907, the complainant, said the Johns-Pratt Company, wrongfully and illegally combined, conspired, and confederated against these defendants, and each of them for the purpose of wrongfully harassing and oppressing them in their lawful trade and business, diminishing the profits thereof, and destroying the same, with the General Electric Company, a corporation of New York, doing business at Schenectady, New York, the Westinghouse Electric &amp Manufacturing Company, a corporation of Pennsylvania, doing business at Pittsburg, Pennsylvania, the Bryant Electric Company, a corporation of Connecticut, doing business at Bridgeport, Connecticut, and the D. & W. Fuse Company, a corporation of Rhode Island, doing business at Providence Rhode Island. That said complainant company, together with said named confederating companies, are all engaged in the manufacture and sale of protective devices similar in their general kind to the manufacture of defendants, and that said companies control a large proportion, to wit, about seventy-five per cent. of all the goods of that class sold in the United States. That pursuant to such wrongful conspiracy and confederation said named confederating companies entered into an agreement with each other by which, among other things, it was agreed in substance that the entire business of the said parties should be allotted to them severally, each to have its certain percentage of the whole, whether in any given period it actually sold more or less than such percentage; that uniform prices should be obligatory upon all of said parties; that any and all letters patent pertaining to the said fuse or protective device business of said parties should be amalgamated in the joint interest, and licenses thereunder from each of said parties to the others be interchanged at nominal figures; that a commissioner should be, and was designated, who should have and receive reports as to prices, business done, etc., and have power to control said business and to settle disputes, if any, between the parties; that a fund should be established by payment thereinto by each of said parties severally of sums agreed upon; that alleged infringers of said patents, or any of them, might be sued; that the expenses of such litigation should be borne by such common fund; that the recoveries from such litigation, if any, should be divided among said parties severally pro rata to the contribution severally to said common fund; that the title to said letters patent should

...