Lowry v. Tile, Mantel & Grate Ass'n of Cal.

Decision Date13 November 1899
Docket Number12,698.
Citation98 F. 817
CourtU.S. District Court — Northern District of California
PartiesLOWRY et al. v. TILE, MANTEL & GRATE ASS'N OF CALIFORNIA et al.

Reddy Campbell & Metson, for plaintiffs.

Linforth & Whitaker, for certain defendants.

MORROW Circuit Judge.

This is an action at law brought to recover damages alleged to have been sustained by plaintiffs by reason of injury to their business caused by the forming of an association by defendants claimed to be within the prohibitory provisions of the act of congress of July 2, 1890, commonly known as the 'Sherman Antitrust Act.' The amended complaint alleges: That plaintiffs are co-partners doing business under the firm name of Lowry & Daly, citizens of the state of California, and residents of the Northern district of said state. That the Tile, Mantel & Grate Association of California, and the officers and members thereof, have since the -- -- - day of January, 1898, and do now, constitute an unincorporated organization composed of wholesale dealers in tiles, mantels, and grates, and that they are now, and ever since that day have been, citizens and residents of the city and county of San Francisco, and of the city of Sacramento and of the city of San Jose, in the state of California, and of the states set forth hereinafter, and that all said defendants have been since that date, and now are, carrying on business in the state of California, and within the jurisdiction of the Northern district thereof. That the defendants hereinafter named are corporations created and existing under the laws of the respective states set opposite to their names: Columbia Encaustic Tile Company, Indiana; United States Encaustic Tile Works, Indiana; Cambridge Tile Manufacturing Company, Kentucky; Pittsburg Tile Company Pennsylvania; Trent Tile Works, New Jersey; W. W. Montague & Co., California; Bush & Mallett Company, California; Star Encaustic Tile Company, Limited, Pennsylvania; Mangrum & Otter, California; American Tile Company, Ohio; Providential Tile Works, New Jersey; the John Stock Sons, California. That the defendants the Columbia Encaustic Tile Company, Cambridge Tile Manufacturing Company, the American Tile Company, the Pittsburg Tile Company, the Providential Tile Works, and the Star Encaustic Tile Company, Limited, are, and were at all the times mentioned, manufacturers of tiles in the states set forth, and that the defendants Heavener Meir, the John Stock Sons, W. W. Montague & Co., Bush & Mallett, Bennett & Schutte, and Mangrum & Otter are, and ever since January 1, 1898, have been, engaged in the wholesale and retail business of buying and selling tiles, mantels, and grates in the cities of Sacramento, San Jose, and San Francisco, in this state. That the following cities, with the respective populations placed opposite their names, are each situated in the Northern district of California: San Francisco, 290,000 and upwards; Oakland, 40,000 and upwards; Sacramento, 30,000 and upwards; San Jose, 20,00 and upwards. That in said cities there are a great number of dwelling houses, buildings used for business, trade purposes, and manufactories. That new buildings are being constantly erected, and in their construction large quantities of tiles, mantels, and grates are necessarily used for their safe construction and comfortable occupation. That none of the tiles used about buildings or dwellings are made in the state of California, but are manufactured in Eastern states, and imported thence, and such importations into this state amount to the annual value of $100,000 or thereabouts. That for many years past plaintiffs have been engaged in the wholesale business of dealing in tiles, mantels, and grates, and in conducting this business have purchased these articles from the various corporations defendant, and shipped them to the state of California, and there sold them; that defendants and their associates who are bound by contract with them comprise all the wholesale dealers who handle and import and sell tiles in the cities aforesaid, and, when combined together, can and do absolutely control the price charged for tiles in said cities, by reason of the distance of these cities from any manufacturers or wholesale dealers other than defendants and those combined with them in other states or foreign countries, who do not belong to the said Tile, Mantel & Grate Association of California. The rates of transportation are prohibitory, so that no tiles have been or can be imported from places other than those in which the corporations and above-named persons have manufactories, stock on hand, or warerooms, and all the grates and tiles made and manufactured within reach of the state of California, where the rate of freight is such that an importation can be made to San Francisco and siad other cities at such an amount as to admit of their importation at all, are, and at all times mentioned have been, controlled by the said defendants, or some of them, or those bound by contracts to them. That before the association, combination, and conspiracy hereinafter referred to, defendants were uncombined, and were selling grates, mantels, and tiles on their respective merits, their prices being determined by the law of supply and demand. That in the years 1896 and 1897 there were in San Francisco and the other said cities numerous persons engaged in the wholesale and retail business of selling tiles, and in the placing and laying of them. That defendants, with intent to form a contract, trust, and conspiracy in restraint of trade and commerce between the state of California and the states of Indiana, Kentucky, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Ohio, for the purpose of controlling the output and regulating the price of these commodities, and monopolizing the said trade, combined and conspired to monopolize the grate, tile, and mantel importations and trade and commerce from other states to and with the state of California, to the extent of the tiles, grates, and mantels that could be used in the state of California in the erection and construction of dwellings and buildings, and so conspired to raise the price of these commodities in the California market, and for this purpose on or about the -- -- day of January, 1898, formed an organization and adopted a constitution and by-laws, which constitution and by-laws are now in effect. That the said contracts for the sale or delivery, or the placing, of tiles, grates, or mantels, will be made by the manufacturers thereof to any person dealing in these commodities, unless such person belong to the said unincorporated association, and shall pay or cause to be paid -- -- dollars to that organization, and bind themselves to abide by its constitution and by-laws; that is to say, that no one who is a member of that organization shall sell to, or deal with or deliver to, any person engaged in the business of buying, selling, or placing tiles, grates, or mantels in the cities of San Francisco, Oakland, Sacramento, and San Jose, and other cities in this state, unless such person shall become a member of the said unincorporated organization, and shall agree that in their general business of selling such commodities to the general public they shall sell them at such prices as may be arbitrarily fixed by the said unincorporated association. That, prior to the formation of that organization, plaintiffs were doing a large business in selling tiles, mantels, and grates, and were making an annual profit of about $5,000. That plaintiffs are unable to join the said organization, because, according to its constitution and by-laws, a unanimous vote of the members of that organization are so antagonistic to plaintiffs, by reason of business differences, that they would not allow them to enter the organization; and further, the rules and regulations of the association require that members must keep constantly in stock goods to the value of $3,000, and there are times when plaintiffs' stock does not amount to that value. That, if plaintiffs join said association, they would be bound to sell their wares at prices arbitrarily fixed by the association, and not at their fair market value. That said association is illegal and void, by virtue of the act of congress approved July 2, 1890, and by joining it plaintiffs would be guilty of a crime under the said act. That, since the formation of said organization, plaintiffs have been unable to purchase tiles, mantels, or grates from any of the defendants, although they have tendered to the defendants the price of the same. That defendants have refused to deliver any tiles, mantels, or grates to them since the organization of said association. That, about the time of the formation of said association, plaintiffs had placed with defendants certain orders for tiles; but these orders were not filled, but were canceled, by the parties with whom they had been placed, for the reason that plaintiffs did not belong to, and would not join, said organization. That, about the time of the formation of the association, plaintiffs had placed orders for tiles with the Columbia Encaustic Tile Company, which canceled plaintiffs' orders because plaintiffs did not belong to the Tile, Mantel & Grate Association. That said organization is within the statute of the 51st congress, passed and approved July 2, 1890, known as 'Chapter 647, Supplement to the Revised Statutes at Large of the United States. ' That, by reason of the monopoly of such association, plaintiffs are damaged in the sum of $10,000. Plaintiffs pray for treble the sum of $10,000, in accordance with the provisions of the above-named act, and for further equitable relief.

To this amended complaint the defendants W. W. Montague & Co., a corporation; the Bush & Mallett Company, a corporation; Mrs Mary...

To continue reading

Request your trial
6 cases
  • Whitwell v. Continental Tobacco Co.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit
    • November 12, 1903
    ... ... (C.C.) 46 F. 432, 12 ... L.R.A. 753; Lowry v. Tile, Mantel & Grate Ass'n (C.C.) 98 ... F ... v. Wright, 6 Cal ... 258, 65 Am.Dec. 511; Smalley v. Greene, ... ...
  • Case v. Mountain Timber Co.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Western District of Washington
    • February 2, 1914
    ... ... Automaton, etc. (C.C.) 66 F. 788; Lowry v. Tile, ... etc. (C.C. 98 F. 817; Briggs v ... ...
  • Ferguson v. Carr
    • United States
    • Arkansas Supreme Court
    • January 20, 1908
    ... ... Crawford v. Foster, 84 F ... 939; Lowry v. Tile Mantel & Grate Asso., 98 ... F. 817; ... ...
  • Johnson & Gould v. Joseph Schlitz Brewing Co.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Tennessee
    • September 1, 1939
    ...regardless of the other situation concerning the case. He can't be in court and out of court at the same time. Lowry et al. v. Tile, Mantel & Grate Ass'n et al., C.C., 98 F. 817; Crawford v. Foster, 7 Cir., 84 F. 939, 28 C.C.A. 576; Thames & Mersey Marine Ins. Co. v. United States, 237 U.S.......
  • 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