Paramount Famous Lasky Corporation v. United States
| Decision Date | 24 November 1930 |
| Docket Number | No. 83,83 |
| Citation | 75 L.Ed. 145,282 U.S. 30,51 S.Ct. 42 |
| Parties | PARAMOUNT FAMOUS LASKY CORPORATION et al. v. UNITED STATES |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
[Syllabus from pages 30-32 intentionally omitted] Messrs. Cornelius W. Wickersham and John W. Davis, both of New York City (Messrs. Henry W. Taft, Paxton Blair, Arthur L. Fisk, Jr., and Gabriel L. Hess, all of New York City, on the brief), for appellants.
The Attorney General and Mr. John Lord O'Brian, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the United States.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 32-36 intentionally omitted] Mr. Justice McREYNOLDS delivered the opinion of the Court.
By this proceeding the United States seek to prevent further violation of section 1, Act of Congress approved July 2, 1890 (Sherman Anti-Trust Act) c. 647, 26 Stat. 209 (15 USCA § 1), through an alleged combination and conspiracy to restrain interstate commerce in motion picture films.
Appellants are the Paramount Famous Lasky Corporation and nine other corporations (distributors) producers and distributors throughout the Union of 60 per cent. of the films used for displaying motion pictures by some 25,000 theater owners (exhibitors), the Motion Picture Producers and Distributors of America, a corporation with class B membership composed of the above-mentioned distributors, and thirty-two film boards of trade, which severally function within certain defined regions.
Each distributor produces and then distributes films through its own exchanges, maintained in thirty-two centrally located cities-Albany, Atlanta, Chicago, Los Angeles, etc. Each of these exchanges has a manager, and under his supervision contracts are made for the use of his distributor's films within the designated territory or region and thereafter placed in the hands of the exhibitors. Other distributors, who with appellants control 98 per cent. of the entire business, also have managers with like duties in the same cities. In each region all of these managers are associated through and constitute the entire membership of the local film board of trade.
Under the common practice, in the spring, when most of the pictures are still only in contemplation, each distributor announces its intended program of distribution for twelve months. After this announcement, exhibitors are solicited to enter into written contracts for permission to display such of the pictures as they desire; and, as no distributor can offer enough pictures to supply the average exhibitor's full requirement, he must deal with several.
Under an agreement amongst themselves, appellant distributors will only contract with exhibitors according to the terms of the standard exhibition contract, dated May 1, 1928. Ordinarily, neither party gives security for compliance with such agreements, by cash deposit or otherwise.
This standard contract is an elaborate document, covering eight pages of the record. Under it the distributor licenses the exhibitor to display specified photoplays at a designated theater on definite dates. Provision is made for cash payment three days in advance of any shipment, time and place of delivery, return of the prints, etc. Section 18 ()1 provides, in substance, that each party shall submit any controversy that may arise to a board of arbitration, in the city where the distributor's exchange is located, established under and controlled by written rules adopted May 1, 1928, accept as conclusive the findings of this board, and forego the right to trial by jury. And further:
'In the event that the Exhibitor shall fail or refuse to consent to submit to arbitration any claim or controversy arising under this or any other Standard Exhibition Con- tract which the Exhibitor may have with the Distributor or any other distributor or to abide by and forthwith comply with any decision or award of such Board of Arbitration upon any such claim or controversy so submitted, the Distributor may, at its option, demand, for its protection and as security for the performance by the Exhibitor of this and all other existing contracts between the parties hereto, payment by the Exhibitor of an additional sum not exceeding $500 under each existing contract, such sum to be retained by the Distributor until the complete performance of all such contracts and then applied, at the option of the Distributor, against any sums finally due or against any damages determined by said Board of Arbitration to be due to the Distributor, the balance, if any to be returned to the Exhibitor; and in the event of the Exhibitor's failure to pay such additional sum within seven (7) days after demand, the Distributor may by written notice to the Exhibitor suspend service hereunder until said sum shall be paid and/or terminate this contract.'
The rules of arbitration provide for a board, three of whom shall be members of the local film board of trade and three proprietors or managers of theaters in its region. This arbitration board shall have power to determine the controversy, make findings, direct what shall be done with respect to the dispute; 'and shall fix the maximum amount,' not exceeding $500, which each distributor may demand as security pursuant to the arbitration clause in the event of the failure of the exhibitor to submit to arbitration or to comply with the award. The secretary of the board of arbitration is required to notify the secretary of the film board of trade of the name and address of each exhibitor found to have refused to arbitrate or comply with an award, and the maximum amount of security, not above $500, found by the board.
The record discloses that ten competitors in interstate commerce, controlling 60 per cent. of the entire film business, have agreed to restrict their liberty of action by refusing to contract for display of pictures except upon a standard form, which provides for compulsory joint action by them in respect of dealings with one who fails to observe such a contract with any distributor, all with the manifest purpose to coerce the exhibitor and limit the freedom of trade.
The United States...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States v. Standard Oil Co.
...Stone Cutter's Association, 274 U.S. 37, 54, 47 S.Ct. 522, 71 L.Ed. 916, 54 A.L.R. 791; Paramount Famous Corporation v. United States, 282 U.S. 30, 43, 44, 51 S.Ct. 42, 75 L.Ed. 145; United States v. First National Pictures, Inc., 282 U.S. 44, 54, 51 S.Ct. 45, 75 L.Ed. 151; National Harness......
-
Southland Corporation v. Keating
...mean that all such agreements are valid irrespective of their purpose or effect. See generally, Paramount Famous Lasky Corp. v. United States, 282 U.S. 30, 51 S.Ct. 42, 75 L.Ed. 145 (1930) (holding arbitration agreement void as a restraint of We should not refuse to exercise independent jud......
-
National Collegiate Athletic Association v. Board of Regents of University of Oklahoma
...at 1928 (per curiam); Professional Engineers, 435 U.S., at 692-695, 98 S.Ct., at 1365-1367; Paramount Famous Lasky Corp. v. United States, 282 U.S. 30, 43-44, 51 S.Ct. 42, 45, 75 L.Ed. 145 (1930). 41 See United States v. McKesson & Robbins, Inc., 351 U.S. 305, 309-310, 76 S.Ct. 937, 939-940......
-
CE Stevens Co. v. Foster & Kleiser Co.
...325; Thomsen v. Cayser, 243 U.S. 66, 85, 37 S.Ct. 353, 61 L.Ed. 597, Ann.Cas.1917D, 322; Paramount Famous Lasky Corp. v. United States, 282 U.S. 30, 44, 51 S.Ct. 42, 75 L.Ed. 145. 22 United States v. American Linseed Oil Co., 262 U.S. 371, 388, 43 S.Ct. 607, 67 L.Ed. 1035; Maple Flooring Mf......
-
Antitrust and Organized Labor
...in a nonlabor market. 3 1. Brown v. Pro Football, Inc., 518 U.S. 231, 241 (1996) (citing Paramount Famous Lasky Corp. v. United States, 282 U.S. 30 (1930)). 2. See Clarett v. NFL, 369 F.3d 124, 130 (2d Cir. 2004) (“[I]t has long been recognized that in order to accommodate the collective ba......
-
Table of Cases
...183 Paragould Cablevision, Inc. v. City of Paragould, 930 F.2d 1310 (8th Cir. 1991), 120 Paramount Famous Lasky Corp. v. United States, 282 U.S. 30 (1930), 193 Parker v. Brown, 317 U.S. 341 (1943), 2, 3, 4, 10, 18, 57, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 112, 117, 118, 119, 120, 128, 13......
-
Restraints of Trade
...trade for refusal to deal with doctors for nonprofit government employee health service); Paramount Famous Lasky Corp. v. United States, 282 U.S. 30, 36-41 (1930) (agreement among film print manufacturers to sell only subject to a standard contract form held illegal); Binderup v. Pathe Exch......
-
The Evolution of Antitrust Arbitration
...was simply not the intent of the legislation, which was specifically aimed at voluntary resolution of disputes between merchants.").22. 282 U.S. 30 (1930).23. Id. at 43 (quoting United States v. Am. Oil Co., 262 U.S. at 390) (emphasis added). See also Christopher R. Leslie, Conspiracy to Ar......