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, Nos. 381

CourtUnited States Supreme Court
Writing for the CourtMcKenna
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
Decision Date12 March 1906
Docket Number383,Nos. 381,382,385,384

201 U.S. 117
26 S.Ct. 356
50 L.Ed. 686
LEWIS 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.

Nos. 381, 382, 383, 384, 385.
Argued January 5, 8, 1906.
Decided March 12, 1906.

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.

Page 118

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

Page 119

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...

To continue reading

Request your trial
234 practice notes
  • International Horizons, Inc., Matter of, No. 82-8024
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (11th Circuit)
    • October 21, 1982
    ...85 (1971); Cobbledick v. United States, 309 U.S. 323, 325-26, 60 S.Ct. 540, 541-42, 84 L.Ed. 783 (1940); Alexander v. United States, 201 U.S. 117, 121-22, 26 S.Ct. 356, 357-58, 50 L.Ed. 686 10 See, e.g., Branch v. Phillips Petroleum Co., 638 F.2d 873, 877 (5th Cir. 1981) (dicta ) (witness m......
  • Grand Jury, In re, No. 79-2221
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (3rd Circuit)
    • April 17, 1980
    ...1580, 29 L.Ed.2d 85 (1971); Cobbledick v. United States, 309 U.S. 323, 60 S.Ct. 540, 84 L.Ed. 783 (1940); Alexander v. United States, 201 U.S. 117, 26 S.Ct. 356, 50 L.Ed. 686 (1906). The Court has recognized that the unique official status of the witness to whom the subpoena was addressed m......
  • National Super Spuds, Inc. v. New York Mercantile Exchange, Nos. 343
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (2nd Circuit)
    • January 17, 1979
    ...order granting an injunction (under § 1292(a)(1)) and it is not appealable. This is the oft-cited rule of Alexander v. United States, (201 U.S. 117, 26 S.Ct. 356, 50 L.Ed. 686 (1906)).' 9 Moore, Federal Practice P 110.13(2) at 153-54 (Ward ed. 1975). The remedy of the party witness wishing ......
  • Grand Jury, In re, Nos. 97-7016
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (3rd Circuit)
    • April 25, 1997
    ...(1971); Cobbledick v. United States, 309 U.S. 323, 60 S.Ct. 540, 84 L.Ed. 783 (1940); Alexander v. United States, 201 Page 1077 U.S. 117, 26 S.Ct. 356, 50 L.Ed. 686 (1906). "Where, however, a person lacks the opportunity to contest the subpoena by disobedience because it is not directed to ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
234 cases
  • International Horizons, Inc., Matter of, No. 82-8024
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (11th Circuit)
    • October 21, 1982
    ...85 (1971); Cobbledick v. United States, 309 U.S. 323, 325-26, 60 S.Ct. 540, 541-42, 84 L.Ed. 783 (1940); Alexander v. United States, 201 U.S. 117, 121-22, 26 S.Ct. 356, 357-58, 50 L.Ed. 686 10 See, e.g., Branch v. Phillips Petroleum Co., 638 F.2d 873, 877 (5th Cir. 1981) (dicta ) (witness m......
  • Grand Jury, In re, No. 79-2221
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (3rd Circuit)
    • April 17, 1980
    ...1580, 29 L.Ed.2d 85 (1971); Cobbledick v. United States, 309 U.S. 323, 60 S.Ct. 540, 84 L.Ed. 783 (1940); Alexander v. United States, 201 U.S. 117, 26 S.Ct. 356, 50 L.Ed. 686 (1906). The Court has recognized that the unique official status of the witness to whom the subpoena was addressed m......
  • National Super Spuds, Inc. v. New York Mercantile Exchange, Nos. 343
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (2nd Circuit)
    • January 17, 1979
    ...order granting an injunction (under § 1292(a)(1)) and it is not appealable. This is the oft-cited rule of Alexander v. United States, (201 U.S. 117, 26 S.Ct. 356, 50 L.Ed. 686 (1906)).' 9 Moore, Federal Practice P 110.13(2) at 153-54 (Ward ed. 1975). The remedy of the party witness wishing ......
  • Grand Jury, In re, Nos. 97-7016
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (3rd Circuit)
    • April 25, 1997
    ...(1971); Cobbledick v. United States, 309 U.S. 323, 60 S.Ct. 540, 84 L.Ed. 783 (1940); Alexander v. United States, 201 Page 1077 U.S. 117, 26 S.Ct. 356, 50 L.Ed. 686 (1906). "Where, however, a person lacks the opportunity to contest the subpoena by disobedience because it is not directed to ......
  • 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