Martin Lawlor v. Dietrich Loewe, No. 358
| Court | United States Supreme Court |
| Writing for the Court | Holmes |
| Citation | 35 S.Ct. 170,235 U.S. 522,59 L.Ed. 341 |
| Decision Date | 05 January 1915 |
| Docket Number | No. 358 |
| Parties | MARTIN LAWLOR et al., Plffs. in Err., v. DIETRICH E. LOEWE and Marvin Fuchs, Partners, under the Firm Name of D. E. Loewe & Company |
v.
DIETRICH E. LOEWE and Marvin Fuchs, Partners, under the Firm Name of D. E. Loewe & Company.
Page 523
Messrs. Alton B. Parker and Frank L. Mulholland for plaintiffs in error.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 523-528 intentionally omitted]
Page 528
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...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States v. Twentieth Century-Fox Film Corp., No. 14354.
...Eastern States Retail Lumber Dealers' Ass'n v. United States, 1914, 234 U.S. 600, 612, 34 S.Ct. 951, 58 L.Ed. 1490; Lawlor v. Loewe, 1915, 235 U.S. 522, 534, 35 S.Ct. 170, 59 L.Ed. 341; United States v. Masonite Corp., supra Note 13, 316 U.S. at page 275, 62 S.Ct. at page 1076; American Tob......
-
Burlington Northern R. Co. v. Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees, No. 86-1666
...the regime of Duplex Printing; Bedford Cut Stone Co. v. Stone Cutters, 274 U.S. 37, 47 S.Ct. 522, 71 L.Ed. 916 (1927); Lawlor v. Loewe, 235 U.S. 522, 35 S.Ct. 170, 59 L.Ed. 341 (1914) (Danbury Hatters ); and like cases, and to protect secondary conduct. See Sec. 4(e), 29 U.S.C. Sec. 104(e).......
-
Flintkote Company v. Lysfjord, No. 15005.
...in the future from that particular invasion, including what he has suffered during and will suffer after the trial. Lawlor v. Loewe, 235 U.S. 522, 536, 35 S.Ct. 170, 59 L.Ed. 341. But he can not at once recover for anticipated invasions, even though they are of the same general character of......
-
Telecor Communications v. Southwestern Bell, No. 01-6067.
...803, 816 (1st Cir.1988). Future damages are permissible, but only to the extent that they are based upon past wrongdoing. Lawlor v. Loewe, 235 U.S. 522, 536, 35 S.Ct. 170, 59 L.Ed. 341 In Oklahoma, a statutory antitrust action is in the nature of tort, and is not an action on contract. McDo......
-
United States v. Twentieth Century-Fox Film Corp., No. 14354.
...Eastern States Retail Lumber Dealers' Ass'n v. United States, 1914, 234 U.S. 600, 612, 34 S.Ct. 951, 58 L.Ed. 1490; Lawlor v. Loewe, 1915, 235 U.S. 522, 534, 35 S.Ct. 170, 59 L.Ed. 341; United States v. Masonite Corp., supra Note 13, 316 U.S. at page 275, 62 S.Ct. at page 1076; American Tob......
-
Burlington Northern R. Co. v. Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees, No. 86-1666
...the regime of Duplex Printing; Bedford Cut Stone Co. v. Stone Cutters, 274 U.S. 37, 47 S.Ct. 522, 71 L.Ed. 916 (1927); Lawlor v. Loewe, 235 U.S. 522, 35 S.Ct. 170, 59 L.Ed. 341 (1914) (Danbury Hatters ); and like cases, and to protect secondary conduct. See Sec. 4(e), 29 U.S.C. Sec. 104(e).......
-
Flintkote Company v. Lysfjord, No. 15005.
...in the future from that particular invasion, including what he has suffered during and will suffer after the trial. Lawlor v. Loewe, 235 U.S. 522, 536, 35 S.Ct. 170, 59 L.Ed. 341. But he can not at once recover for anticipated invasions, even though they are of the same general character of......
-
Telecor Communications v. Southwestern Bell, No. 01-6067.
...803, 816 (1st Cir.1988). Future damages are permissible, but only to the extent that they are based upon past wrongdoing. Lawlor v. Loewe, 235 U.S. 522, 536, 35 S.Ct. 170, 59 L.Ed. 341 In Oklahoma, a statutory antitrust action is in the nature of tort, and is not an action on contract. McDo......