Massey-Ferguson Ltd. v. Intermountain Ford Tractor Sales Co.
| Decision Date | 24 January 1964 |
| Docket Number | No. 7278.,7278. |
| Citation | 325 F.2d 713 |
| Parties | MASSEY-FERGUSON LIMITED, a corporation, Appellant, v. INTERMOUNTAIN FORD TRACTOR SALES COMPANY, a corporation, Cassia Equipment Co., a corporation, Elliotts Inc., a corporation, Chisholm Brothers Farm Equipment Co., a corporation and Charles W. Bullen, doing business as Bullen Farm Equipment Company, Appellees. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Tenth Circuit |
Dennis McCarthy, of Van Cott, Bagley, Cornwall & McCarthy, Salt Lake City, Utah (L. R. Gardiner, Jr., Salt Lake City, Utah, and John F. Sonnett, New York City, and William T. Lifland, Princeton, N. J., of Cahill, Gordon, Reindel & Ohl, New York City, with him on the brief) for appellant.
Joseph L. Alioto, San Francisco, Cal. (Daniel L. Berman, of Rawlings, Wallace, Roberts & Black, Salt Lake City, Utah, with him on the brief), for appellees.
Before MURRAH, Chief Judge, and HILL and SETH, Circuit Judges.
The question presented on this interlocutory appeal in an antitrust suit is whether the appellant Canadian corporation was, as the trial Court held, transacting business and found within the District of Utah, so as to be amenable to venue and process in that District, under Section 12 of the Clayton Act, 38 Stat. 738, 15 U.S.C. § 22.
We agree with the trial Court that by reason of its interlocking and integrated control of "North American Operations," the appellant Canadian corporation was enabled to and did direct "the detailed activities of the American corporation, including the operation of company stores in both Utah and Idaho; * *" and that it was, therefore, transacting business and found through its subsidiary within the District. Intermountain Ford Tractor Sales Company, a corporation et al. v. Massey-Ferguson Limited, a corporation et al., D.C., 210 F. Supp. 930, 939.
The judgment of the trial Court is affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Southern Machine Company v. Mohasco Industries, Inc.
...superficial. Moore-McCormack Lines, Inc. v. Bunge Corporation, 307 F.2d 910 (4th Cir. 1962); Massey-Ferguson Limited v. Intermountain Ford Tractor Sales Company, 325 F.2d 713 (10th Cir. 1963). 26 Compare, Atwood Hatcheries v. Heisdorf & Nelson Farms, 357 F.2d 847, 853-854 (5th Cir. 1966); F......
-
Hitt v. Nissan Motor Company, Ltd.
...comments in Intermountain Ford Tractor Sales Co. v. Massey Ferguson, Ltd., 210 F.Supp. 930, 933 (D.Utah 1962), aff'd. 325 F.2d 713 (10th Cir. 1963), reh. denied (1964), to the effect that the problem with allowing venue upon merely alleging conspiracy is that the final decision on the merit......
-
Daniel v. American Bd. of Emergency Medicine
...811 (1958)). See also Intermountain Ford Tractor Sales Company v. Massey-Ferguson Limited, 210 F.Supp. 930, 933 (D.Ut.1962), aff'd, 325 F.2d 713 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 377 U.S. 931, 84 S.Ct. 1334, 12 L.Ed.2d (1964) (a conspiracy which has an impact within the district does not constitut......
-
Hoffman Motors Corporation v. Alfa Romeo SpA
...15 U.S.C. § 22. See Intermountain Ford Tractor Sales Co. v. Massey-Ferguson Ltd., 210 F.Supp. 930 (D.Utah 1962), aff'd per curiam, 325 F.2d 713 (10 Cir. 1963), cert. den. 377 U.S. 931, 84 S.Ct. 1334, 12 L.Ed.2d 296 (1964); Waldron v. British Petroleum Co., Trade Reg.Rep. (1957 Trade Cas.) ¶......
-
Antitrust and International Commerce
...agents of Canadian corporation and finding that plaintiffs also may serve Canadian parent at home office in Canada), aff’d per curiam , 325 F.2d 713 (10th Cir. 1963); cf. Omni Capital Int’l, Ltd. v. Rudolf Wolff & Co., Ltd., 484 U.S. 97, 104-08 (1987) (in case arising under the Commodity Ex......
-
Table of Cases
...(M.D. Fla. 2000), 1472 Intermountain Ford Tractor Sales Co. v. Massey-Ferguson Ltd., 210 F. Supp. 930 (D. Utah 1962), aff ’ d per curiam, 325 F.2d 713 (10th Cir. 1963), 1355 International Air Transp. Surcharge Antitrust Litig., In re, No. 3:06-md-1793 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 27, 2006), 1695 Interna......