Lewis Alexander v. United States No 381 George Whiting v. United States No 382 William Stuart v. United States No 383 General Paper Company v. United States No 384 Harmon and General Paper Company v. United States No 385

Citation50 L.Ed. 686,201 U.S. 117,26 S.Ct. 356
Decision Date12 March 1906
Docket Number383,Nos. 381,382,385,384,s. 381
PartiesLEWIS M. ALEXANDER, Appt. , v. UNITED STATES. NO 381. GEORGE A. WHITING, Appt. , v. UNITED STATES. NO 382. WILLIAM Z. STUART, Appt. , v. UNITED STATES. NO 383. GENERAL PAPER COMPANY, Appt. , v. UNITED STATES. NO 384. E. T. HARMON AND GENERAL PAPER COMPANY, Appts. , v. UNITED STATES. NO 385
CourtUnited States Supreme Court

Messrs. James G. Flanders, Charles F. Fawsett, and William Brace for appellants.

Messrs.Frank B. Kellogg, James M. Beck, and Attorney General Moody for appellee.

Mr. Justice McKenna delivered the opinion of the court:

At the very beginning we encounter a question of jurisdiction. Are the orders of which the appellants complain appealable? The orders direct the appellants respectively to appear before Robert F. Taylor, special examiner in the case, at the time and place to be designated, and direct each of them to 'answer each and every question put to them respectively by the counsel for the complainant, the United States of America,' and to produce before such commissioner certain books, papers, records, documents, reports, and contracts, 'for the purpose of their respective examination in said cause, and for use in evidence of the complaint of the United States of America in said examination.' And it is ordered that the complainant's counsel shall have the right to inspect the said books, etc., and to introduce them or any of them in evidence; but, except as necessary for such purposes, the books, etc., to remain in the custody of the appellants.

A brief statement of the proceedings is all that is necessary. The United States, by its proper officers brought suit in the circuit court of the United States for the district of Minnesota against the General Paper Company and twenty-three other corporations, defendants, under and pursuant to the provisions of the act of Congress of July 2, 1890, entitled 'An Act to Protect Trade and Commerce against Unlawful Restraints and Monopolies.' [26 Stat. at L. 209, chap. 647, U. S. Comp. Stat. 1901, p. 3200.] It is alleged in the bill that the defendants, other than the General Paper Company and the Manufacturers' Paper Company, were engaged in the manufacture of manilla and fibre papers in active competition with one another, and that they entered into an agreement, combination, and conspiracy to control, regulate, and monopolize, not only the manufacture of news print, manilla, fibre, and other papers, but also the distribution and shipment thereof among and throughout the middle, southern, and western states. The General Paper Company was the means employed to execute the combination and conspiracy. That company is a corporation organized, the bill alleges, by the other defendants, under the laws of the state of Wisconsin, with a capital stock of $100,000, divided into one thousand shares, which were distributed among and owned and held by the other defendants in proportions based upon the average daily output of the mills of each defendant. It is authorized to become at its principal place of business the sales agent of the products of the defendants' mills in the state of Wisconsin and elsewhere. Absolute power is conferred upon it to control and restrict the output of the mills, fix the price of their products, and determine to whom and the terms and conditions upon which such products shall be sold, into what states and places they shall be shipped, and what publishers and customers each mill shall supply.

The Manufacturers' Paper Company, it is alleged, is a New York corporation, with its principal place of business in Chicago, and, from about the year 1897 to 1902, acted as the sales agent of various manufacturers of paper for the sale of news print and other papers; that in 1902 it became a party to the combination and conspiracy alleged in the bill, and agreed with the General Paper Company not to compete with it in certain territories.

It is admitted that, prior to the formation of the General Paper Company, the other defendants, except the Manufacturers' Paper Company, were in active competition. The formation of the General Paper Company is also admitted, and that it became, by contract with the defendants who manufacture paper, their selling agent. The defendants deny, however, a purpose to violate the act of July 2, 1890. The violation of that law is the issue in the case, and the bill prays an injunction against the defendants and their officers from doing the acts or executing the purpose charged against them.

In trial of the issue thus made the circuit court appointed Robert S. Taylor special examiner, with authority to hear and take testimony within and without the district of Minnesota, and made an order fixing the time to take the testimony for the United States the 16th of May, 1905, at the city of Milwaukee state of Wisconsin. The order was duly served on the counsel of the respective parties. Thereupon the United States petitioned the circuit court for an order directing the clerk of the circuit court to issue a subpoena duces tecum. The subpoena was duly issued and served on the appellants as individuals and as officers of certain of the defendant companies. They appeared before the examiner in obedience to...

To continue reading

Request your trial
236 cases
  • In re Grand Jury
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (3rd Circuit)
    • December 11, 2012
    ......Nos. 12–1697, 12–2878. United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit. Argued ...Robert Lyons, Esquire, Alexander P. Robbins, Esquire (Argued), United States ...John Doe 1 was the company's President and sole (though indirect) ... recognize separate exceptions to the general rule of finality under § 1291. See Krane, 625 ...Gary's Elec. Serv. Co., 340 F.3d 373, 382 (6th Cir.2003); NLRB v. Maine Caterers, Inc., ...v. United States, 449 U.S. 383, 389, 101 S.Ct. 677, 66 L.Ed.2d 584 (1981). ...Taylor, 329 U.S. 495, 505, 67 S.Ct. 385, 91 L.Ed. 451 (1947)).         Despite ...; In re Grand Jury Proceedings, 87 F.3d 377, 381 (9th Cir.1996). Other courts call for evidence ......
  • State v. Heiner, 83-83
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Wyoming
    • May 15, 1984
    ...... intent to injure and defraud an insurance company. We also must address a pretrial ruling by the ... Lynn Borg . "Plaintiff states that inquiry in the matters sought to be excluded ..., should it decline to hear such cases on general policy grounds? . "3. Should the Supreme Court ... Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America to the obtaining of evidence by ...State of Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694, 10 ...denied California v. Stewart, 385 U.S. 890, 87 S.Ct. 11, 17 L.Ed.2d 121 (1966). ... St. George v. Larson, 125 Vt. 352, 215 A.2d 511, 512 (1965); ... Lenz v. Cobo, 338 Mich. 383, 61 N.W.2d 587, 592 (1953); Toulouse v. Board of ...323, 60 S.Ct. 540, 84 L.Ed. 783; Alexander v. United States, 1906, 201 U.S. 117, 26 S.Ct. ......
  • Perkins v. Endicott Johnson Corporation, 218.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (2nd Circuit)
    • May 6, 1942
    ......         Howard A. Swartwood and William H. Pritchard, Jr., both of Endicott, N. Y. (John ...United States, 278 U.S. 221, 49 S.Ct. 118, 73 L.Ed. 275. ...Alexander v. United States, 201 U.S. 117, 26 S.Ct. 356, 50 ... to such intermediate appeals have, in general, been adopted and adapted, and that they have ... the Harriman case was like Cudahy Packing Company v. Holland, March 2, 1942, 62 S.Ct. 651, 86 L.Ed. ...In Sunshine Coal Co. v. Adkins, 310 U.S. 381, 398, 60 S.Ct. 907, 915, 84 L.Ed. 1263, the court ...Montgomery Ward & Co., 7 Cir., 114 F.2d 384, certiorari denied 311 U.S. 690, 61 S.Ct. 71, 85 ...L. R. B., 10 George Wash.L.Rev. (1942) 560, 579. .          ....          49 G. N. Lewis notes that much of the knowledge of the organic ......
  • United States v. Nixon Nixon v. United States 8212 1766, 73 8212 1834
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • July 24, 1974
    ...... .           (b) The Attorney General by regulation has conferred upon the Special ...United States, supra; Alexander v. United States, 201 U.S. 117, 26 S.Ct. 356, 50 ...denied sub nom. Cox v. Hauberg, 381 U.S. 935, 85 S.Ct. 1767, 14 L.Ed.2d 700 (1965), ...Johnson, 383 U.S. 169, 86 S.Ct. 749, 15 L.Ed.2d 681 (1966). ... confirmation hearings, Attorney General William Saxbe testified that he shared Acting Attorney ..., 41—42 (CA6 1965), aff'd on other grounds, 385 U.S. 293, 87 S.Ct. 408, 17 L.Ed.2d 374 (1966); ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT