Martin Lawlor v. Dietrich Loewe

Decision Date05 January 1915
Docket NumberNo. 358,358
Citation35 S.Ct. 170,235 U.S. 522,59 L.Ed. 341
PartiesMARTIN LAWLOR et al., Plffs. in Err., v. DIETRICH E. LOEWE and Marvin Fuchs, Partners, under the Firm Name of D. E. Loewe & Company
CourtU.S. Supreme Court

Messrs. Alton B. Parker and Frank L. Mulholland for plaintiffs in error.

[Argument of Counsel from pages 523-528 intentionally omitted] Messrs. Daniel Davenport and Walter Gordon Merritt for defendants in error.

[Argument of Counsel from pages 528-533 intentionally omitted]

Page 533

Mr. Justice Holmes delivered the opinion of the court:

This is an action under the act of July 2, 1890, chap 647, § 7, 26 Stat. at L. 209, 210, Comp. Stat. 1913, §§ 8820, 8829, for a combination and conspiracy in restraint of commerce among the states, specifically directed against the plaintiffs (defendants in error), among others, and effectively carried out with the infliction of great damage. The declaration was held good on demurrer in 208 U. S. 274, 52 L. ed. 488, 28 Sup. Ct. Rep. 301, 13 Ann. Cas. 815, where it will be found set forth at length. The substance of the charge is that the plaintiffs were hat manufacturers who employed nonunion labor; that the defendants were members of the United Hatters of North America and also of the American Federation of Labor; that in pursuance of a general scheme to unionize the labor employed by manufacturers of fur hats (a purpose previously made effective against all but a few manufacturers), the defendants and other members of the United Hatters caused the American Federation of Labor to declare a boycott against the plaintiffs and against all hats sold by the plaintiffs to dealers in other states, and against dealers who should deal in them; and that they carried out their plan with such success that they have restrained or destroyed the plaintiff's commerce with other states. The case now has been tried,

Page 534

the plaintiffs have got a verdict, and the judgment of the district court has been affirmed by the circuit court of appeals. 126 C. C. A. 445, 209 Fed. 721.

The grounds for discussion under the statute that were not cut away by the decision upon the demurrer have been narrowed still further since the trial by the case of Eastern States Retail Lumber Dealers' Asso. v. United States, 234 U. S. 600, 58 L. ed. 1490, 34 Sup. Ct. Rep. 951. Whatever may be the law otherwise, that case establishes that, irrespective of compulsion or even agreement to observe its intimation, the circulation of a list of 'unfair dealers,' manifestly intended to put the ban upon those whose names appear therein, among an important body of possible customers, combined with a view to joint action and in anticipation of such reports, is within the prohibitions of the Sherman act if it is intended to restrain and restrains commerce among the states.

It requires more than the blindness of justice not to see that many branches of the United Hatters and the Federation of Labor, to both of which the defendants belonged, in pursuance of a plan emanating from headquarters, made use of such lists and of the primary and secondary boycott in their effort to subdue the plaintiffs to their demands. The union label was used and a strike of the plaintiffs' employees was ordered and carried out to the same end, and the purpose to break up the plaintiffs' commerce affected the quality of the acts. Loewe v. Lawlor, 208 U. S. 274, 299, 52 L. ed. 488, 500, 28 Sup. Ct. Rep. 301, 13 Ann. Cas. 815. We agree with the circuit court of appeals that a combination and conspiracy forbidden by the statute were proved, and that the question is narrowed to the responsibility of the defendants for what was done by the sanction and procurement of the societies above named.

The court in substance instructed the jury that if these members paid their dues and continued to delegate authority to their officers unlawfully to interfere with the

Page 535

plaintiffs' interstate commerce in such circumstances that they knew or ought to have known, and such officers were warranted in the belief that they were acting in the matters within their delegated authority, then such members were jointly liable, and no others. It seems to us that this instruction sufficiently guarded the defendants' rights, and that the defendants got all that they were entitled to ask in not being held chargeable with knowledge as matter of law. It is a tax...

To continue reading

Request your trial
146 cases
  • Zenith Radio Corp v. Hazeltine Research, Inc
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • February 24, 1971
    ...F.Supp. 589, 593 (D.C., NJ 1957); Momand v. Universal Film Exchange, Inc., supra, 43 F.Supp. at 1006. Cf. Lawlor v. Loewe, 235 U.S. 522, 526, 35 S.Ct. 170, 172, 59 L.Ed. 341 (1915). Thus, if a plaintiff feels the adverse impact of an antitrust conspiracy on a particular date, a cause of act......
  • St Paul Fire Marine Insurance Company v. Barry
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • June 29, 1978
    ...301, 52 L.Ed. 488 (1908); Gompers v. Bucks Stove & Range Co., 221 U.S. 418, 31 S.Ct. 492, 55 L.Ed. 797 (1911); Lawlor v. Loewe, 235 U.S. 522, 35 S.Ct. 170, 59 L.Ed. 341 (1915); Duplex Co. v. Deering, 254 U.S. 443, 41 S.Ct. 172, 65 L.Ed. 349 (1921); Bedford Stone Co. v. Stone Cutters' Assn.,......
  • Interstate Circuit v. United States Paramount Pictures Distributing Co v. Same
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • February 13, 1939
    ...Lumber Dealers' Association v. United States, 234 U.S. 600, 34 S.Ct. 951, 58 L.Ed. 1490, L.R.A.1915A, 788; Lawlor v. Loewe, 235 U.S. 522, 534, 35 S.Ct. 170, 171, 59 L.Ed. 341; American Column & Lumber Co. v. United States, 257 U.S. 377, 42 S.Ct. 114, 66 L.Ed. 284, 21 A.L.R. 1093; United Sta......
  • Apex Hosiery Co v. Leader
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • May 27, 1940
    ...Ann.Cas. 815; Gompers v. Buck's Stove & Range Co., 221 U.S. 418, 31 S.Ct. 402, 55 L.Ed. 797, 34 L.R.A.,N.S., 874; Lawlor v. Loewe, 235 U.S. 522, 35 S.Ct. 170, 59 L.Ed. 341; Duplex Printing Press Co. v. Deering, 254 U.S. 443, 41 S.Ct. 172, 65 L.Ed. 349, 16 A.L.R. 196; Coronado Coal Co. v. Un......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
4 books & journal articles
  • Labor Unions: Saviors or Scourges?
    • United States
    • Capital University Law Review No. 41-1, January 2013
    • December 1, 2013
    ...of this case sustained the collection of monetary damages from union members who supported the boycott effort. See Lawlor v. Loewe, 235 U.S. 522 (1915). 12 CAPITAL UNIVERSITY LAW REVIEW [41:1 rise to the tort of inducement of breach of contract. 71 The major case on point is Vegelahn v. Gun......
  • Table of Cases
    • United States
    • ABA Antitrust Library Proof of Conspiracy Under Federal Antitrust Laws. Second Edition
    • December 8, 2018
    ...Cir. 1991), 217 Law v. NCAA, 134 F.3d 1010 (10th Cir. 1998), 144 , 170 Law v. NCAA, 902 F. Supp. 1394 (D. Kan. 1995), 33 Lawlor v. Loewe, 235 U.S. 522 (1915), 14 Leaco Enters. v. Gen. Elec. Co., 737 F. Supp. 605 (D. Or. 1990), 135 Leegin Creative Leather Prods. v. PSKS, Inc., 551 U.S. 877 (......
  • THE TRADITIONAL BURDENS FOR FINAL INJUNCTIONS IN PATENT CASES C.1789 AND SOME MODERN IMPLICATIONS.
    • United States
    • Case Western Reserve Law Review Vol. 71 No. 2, December 2020
    • December 22, 2020
    ...(133.) Suffolk Co. V. Hayden, 70 U.S. (3 Wall.) 315, 320 (1866), aff'g 11 F. Cas. 900, 907 (C.D. Mass. 1862) (No. 6,261); Lawlor v. Loewe, 235 U.S. 522, 536 (1915), aff'g 209 F. 721, 729 (2d Cir. 1913); see also Wicker v. Hoppock, 73 U.S. 94, 99 (1867) (contract); Bradley v. Washington, Ale......
  • Introduction
    • United States
    • ABA Antitrust Library Proof of Conspiracy Under Federal Antitrust Laws. Second Edition
    • December 8, 2018
    ...resulted in that direct and undue restraint of interstate commerce which is condemned by this anti -trust statute”); Lawlor v. Loewe, 235 U.S. 522, 534 (1915) (“[w]e agree . . . that a combination and conspiracy forbidden by the statute were proved”); Eastern States Retail Lumber Dealers’ A......

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