Peterson v. Borden Co., 4498.

Decision Date16 July 1931
Docket NumberNo. 4498.,4498.
Citation50 F.2d 644
PartiesPETERSON et al. v. BORDEN CO. et al.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit

Francis W. Marshall, of Chicago, Ill., for appellants.

Cutting, Moore & Sidley, Donald F. McPherson, James F. Oates, Jr., and John Paulding Brown, all of Chicago, Ill., and Beverley R. Robinson, of New York City., for appellees.

Before ALSCHULER, EVANS, and SPARKS, Circuit Judges.

ALSCHULER, Circuit Judge.

Plaintiffs appeal from the judgment dismissing their suit, after the sustaining of the demurrer to their declaration.

As stated in plaintiffs' brief: "This action was brought to recover damages for injury to plaintiffs' property caused by the alleged violation of the antitrust laws by the defendants as provided in U. S. Code, title 15, § 15 15 USCA § 15. The section of the antitrust laws alleged to have been violated is Title 15, Section 18."

The declaration charged in substance that plaintiffs owned 315 shares of the Clover Leaf Milk Company, an Illinois corporation engaged in interstate commerce in milk in competition with the corporate defendants, who were likewise engaged in such interstate commerce; that the two individual defendants named in the declaration (but not served with summons, and not appearing in the action) owned a majority of the stock of the Clover Leaf Milk Company, and were its controlling officers and directors; that the individual defendants had arranged with the corporate defendants, or one of them, for the acquirement by the corporate defendants of all the assets of the Clover Leaf Milk Company in exchange for 8,000 shares of stock of defendant the Borden Company, and that in order to carry out the project it was necessary to acquire the said stock of plaintiffs; that the individual defendants conspired together for the acquirement of said stock, and by means of false representations by said individual defendants to the plaintiffs the individual defendants succeeded in purchasing plaintiffs' stock at the price of $535 a share, when in fact the said stock was worth $1,000 a share; that the corporate defendants entered into the conspiracy to so defraud plaintiffs by supplying to the individual defendants cash to the extent of $181,000 to enable the purchase to be made; that thereupon the individual defendants caused to be conveyed to the corporate defendants, or one of them, all the assets of the Clover Leaf Milk Company, and the corporate defendants delivered to said Clover Leaf...

To continue reading

Request your trial
15 cases
  • Hoover v. Allen
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York
    • June 17, 1965
    ...City Southern Ry., 84 F.2d 411, 414 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 299 U.S. 607, 57 S.Ct. 233, 81 L.Ed. 448 (1936); Peterson v. Borden Co., 50 F.2d 644, 645-646 (7th Cir. 1931); Meisel v. North Jersey Trust Co., 218 F.Supp. 274 (S.D.N.Y.1963). Compare Goldstein v. Groesbeck, 142 F.2d 422, 426-427......
  • In re Libor-Based Fin. Instruments Antitrust Litig., 11 MDL 2262 (NRB)
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York
    • August 4, 2015
    ...F.3d 117, 122 (2d Cir. 2007) (same); see also Brunswick, 429 U.S. at 488 n.13 (citing as analogous cases Peterson v. Borden Page 211Co., 50 F.2d 644 (7th Cir. 1931) (affirming judgment sustaining defendant's demurrer), and Kirihara v. Bendix Corp., 306 F. Supp. 72 (D. Haw. 1969) (dismissing......
  • McDonald v. Johnson & Johnson
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit
    • February 28, 1984
    ...U.S. 893, 102 S.Ct. 388, 70 L.Ed.2d 207 (1981); A.D.M. Corp. v. Sigma Instruments, Inc., 628 F.2d 753 (1st Cir.1980); Peterson v. Borden Co., 50 F.2d 644 (7th Cir.1931); Snyco, Inc. v. Penn Central Corp., 551 F.Supp. 949 (E.D.Pa.1982); Turner v. Johnson & Johnson, 549 F.Supp. 807 (D.Mass.19......
  • Reibert v. Atlantic Richfield Company
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Tenth Circuit
    • January 8, 1973
    ...Unions v. Loew's, Inc., 193 F.2d 51 (9th Cir. 1951), cert. denied, 342 U.S. 919, 72 S. Ct. 367, 96 L.Ed. 687 (1952); Peterson v. Borden Co., 50 F.2d 644 (7th Cir. 1931); Rayco Mfg. Co. v. Dunn, 234 F. Supp. 593 (N.D.Ill.1964). In Peterson v. Borden Co., supra, stockholders were allegedly fr......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

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