Meeker v. Lehigh Valley R. Co.
| Decision Date | 02 December 1910 |
| Docket Number | 61. |
| Parties | MEEKER v. LEHIGH VALLEY R. CO. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit |
[Copyrighted Material Omitted]
Shearman and Sterling (John A. Garver and William A. Glascow, Jr., of counsel), for plaintiff in error.
Alexander & Green (Frank H. Platt, Allan McCulloh, and George S Franklin, of counsel), for defendant in error.
Writ of error to review a final judgment of the Circuit Court Southern District of New York, sustaining a demurrer to, and dismissing, an amended complaint upon the ground that it does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action.
The action was brought to recover treble damages under the federal anti-trust statute (Act July 2, 1890, c. 647, Sec. 7, 26 Stat. 210 (U.S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 3202)).
The complaint alleges that the plaintiff and his predecessors have been engaged in the city of New York in the business of buying, shipping, and selling anthracite coal; that this coal can be obtained only in a limited area in Pennsylvania; that the greater part of the anthracite coal product is shipped to New York City; that the only means of shipping coal from the anthracite regions to New York is over the lines of the defendant railroad company and certain other railroad companies designated as the 'Anthracite Companies'; that these companies have for many years owned and controlled large tracts of coal lands in said regions and have for many years been engaged, either directly or through the control of coal companies, in mining and dealing in anthracite coal, and control the Eastern market for a very large part of such coal annually mined.
The complaint further alleges that prior to 1901 the plaintiff and other independent shippers were able to, and did, purchase coal in said anthracite regions at varying competitive prices and arranged for its transportation to New York by the various anthracite companies at varying competitive charges, but that in that year said corporations, including the defendant, 'conspired and combined together to increase the prices of anthracite coal at the mines and the charges for the transportation of such coal from the mines in Pennsylvania to New York tidewater to such a point as would enable them to monopolize the trade and commerce in anthracite coal between the said states, and, by driving all independent shippers out of business, to obtain exclusive control of such business and to control absolutely, especially in the New York market, the market price of anthracite coal; and they have ever since maintained such conspiracy and combination.'
The complaint further alleges that the instrumentality employed to make said company effective was the Temple Iron Company, a mining corporation, all the stock of which was owned by the Anthracite Companies; that the directors of this corporation were officials of the Anthracite Companies; and that these persons, while ostensibly acting as directors, really met and acted for the purpose of considering the most effective means of insuring the success of the conspiracy.
It further alleges, in substance, that the conspiracy was carried into effect by increasing the price to be paid for coal at the breakers or mines to 65 per cent. of the tidewater prices and by charging 40 per cent. of the tidewater prices for transportation to New York tidewater. 'This increase in price at the mines,' so the complaint alleges, 'was made so that the independent shippers would not then or at any time subsequently be able to sell anthracite coal in the New York market, in competition with the coal companies owned or controlled by the Anthracite Companies. ' And it is also alleged that, while the increased charge for transportation rendered it impossible for the coal companies owned by the Anthracite Companies to make a profit on coal shipped to New York tidewater, yet that this result made no difference to the Anthracite Companies as they gained what the coal companies lost.
The complaint also alleges that, as a result of the conspiracy, the Anthracite Companies have gained almost exclusive control of the New York market for anthracite coal, and, further, contains allegations of damage which are examined in the opinion.
The original complaint in this action was demurred to, and the demurrer was sustained by Judge Ray in an opinion reported in 162 F. 354. Thereupon the plaintiff filed the present amended complaint which is regarded as containing materially different facts from those appearing in the original complaint.
Before LACOMBE, WARD, and NOYES, Circuit Judges.
NOYES Circuit Judge (after stating the facts as above).
The complaint sets forth a conspiracy on the part of the defendant and other railroad companies to force independent dealers in anthracite coal out of the field and to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Peterson v. Hopson
...and the decision was reversed, the report stating that the amended bill was ‘regarded as containing materially different facts.’ 2 Cir., 183 F. 548, 550. See, also, Calder v. Haynes, 7 Allen 387;Miles v. Hamilton, 106 Kan. 804, 805, 806, 189 P. 926, 19 A.L.R. 276;People v. Opie, 304 Ill. 52......
-
Peterson v. Hopson
... ... a new right of appeal. That course was adopted by a district ... court in Meeker v. Lehigh Valley Railroad, 175 F. 320; but an ... appeal was actually prosecuted and the decision ... ...
-
Package Closure Corporation v. Sealright Co.
...378, 47 S.Ct. 400, 71 L.Ed. 684; Palmer v. Connecticut Ry. Co., 311 U.S. 544, 559, 61 S.Ct. 379, 85 L.Ed. 336; Meeker v. Lehigh Valley R. Co., 2 Cir., 183 F. 548, 551, 552. 16 It reads in part as follows: "It shall be unlawful for any person engaged in commerce, in the course of such commer......
-
Keogh v. Chicago & N.W. Ry. Co.
... ... Co., supra; Knudsen v. Michigan Central R.R. Co., ... 148 F. 968, 79 C.C.A. 46; Meeker v. Lehigh Valley ... R.R., 183 F. 548, 106 C.C.A. 94; Central Coal & Coke ... Co. v. Hartman, 111 ... ...