Public Service Co. of New Mexico v. General Electric Co., 7140-7143

Citation315 F.2d 306
Decision Date10 June 1963
Docket Number7212.,7181-7188,No. 7140-7143,7211,7140-7143
PartiesPUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF NEW MEXICO, Appellant, v. GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY et al., Appellees. SOUTHWESTERN PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY, Appellant, v. GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY et al., Appellees. The TOWN OF FARMINGTON, NEW MEXICO, Appellant, v. ALLEN-BRADLEY COMPANY et al., Appellees. CITY OF GALLUP, Appellant, v. GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY et al., Appellees. ALLIS-CHALMERS MANUFACTURING COMPANY et al., Appellants, v. PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF COLORADO et al., Appellees. OHIO BRASS COMPANY et al., Appellants, v. PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF COLORADO et al., Appellees. ALLEN-BRADLEY COMPANY et al., Appellants, v. PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF COLORADO, Appellee. OHIO BRASS COMPANY et al., Appellants, v. HOME LIGHT AND POWER COMPANY, Appellee. GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY et al., Appellants, v. CITY OF COLORADO SPRINGS, Appellee. FEDERAL PACIFIC ELECTRIC COMPANY et al., Appellants, v. WESTERN POWER & GAS COMPANY, Appellee. GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY et al., Appellants, v. SAN LUIS VALLEY RURAL ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, INC., Appellee. GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY et al., Appellants, v. COLORADO UTE ELECTRIC ASSOCIATION, Appellee. BRIGHAM CITY CORPORATION et al., Appellants, v. GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY et al., Appellees. PROVO CITY, Appellant, v. GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY et al., Appellees.
CourtUnited States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (10th Circuit)

John B. Tittmann, Albuquerque, N. M., and Joseph L. Alioto, San Francisco, Cal., for appellants in Nos. 7140-7143, 7211 and 7212 and for appellees in Nos. 7181-7188.

Ross L. Malone, Roswell, N. M., for appellees in Nos. 7140-7143, 7211 and 7212 and for appellants in Nos. 7181-7188.

W. A. Keleher, Albuquerque, N. M., and Turner, White, Atwood, Meer & Francis, Dallas, Tex., were on the brief for appellant in No. 7140.

Howard C. Bratton, of Hervey, Dow & Hinkle, Roswell, N. M., was on the brief for appellant in No. 7141.

James B. Cooney, of Cooney, Schlenker & Briones, Farmington, N. M., was on the brief for appellant in No. 7142.

Alfred O. Lebeck, Jr., of Lebeck, DePauli & Rich, Gallup, N. M., was on the brief for appellant in No. 7143.

John P. Eastham, of Rodey, Dickason, Sloan, Akin & Robb, Albuquerque, N. M., was on the brief for appellee General Electric Co. in Nos. 7140-7143.

Atwood & Malone, Roswell, N. M., were on the brief for appellee Westinghouse Electric Corporation in Nos. 7140-7143.

A. T. Seymour, of Modrall, Seymour, Sperling, Roehl & Harris, Albuquerque, N. M., was on the brief for appellee Allis-Chalmers Manufacturing Co. in Nos. 7140-7142, appellee H. K. Porter Company, Inc., in No. 7142 and appellee McGraw-Edison Company in Nos. 7142 and 7143.

Winston S. Howard, Hugh A. Burns and James E. Hautzinger, of Dawson, Nagel, Sherman & Howard, Denver, Colo., were on the brief for appellee Allis-Chalmers Manufacturing Co. in Nos. 7140-7142, appellee H. K. Porter Co., Inc., in No. 7142, appellant Allis-Chalmers Manufacturing Co. in Nos. 7181, 7185-7188 and appellant H. K. Porter Co., Inc., in Nos. 7182, 7184 and 7188.

Waldo Spiess, of Spiess & Hackney, Albuquerque, N. M., was on the brief for appellees Allen-Bradley Company, C. H. Wheeler Manufacturing Co., Clark Controller Co., Cutler-Hammer, Inc., Ohio Brass Co., Inc., and Square D Co. in No. 7142.

Bryan G. Johnson, of Iden & Johnson, Albuquerque, N. M., was on the brief for appellees Carrier Corporation, Joslyn Manufacturing & Supply Co., Moloney Electric Co., Sangamo Electric Co., Southern States Equipment Corporation, Porcelain Insulator Co. and Wagner Electric Corporation in No. 7142.

C. R. McIntosh, Santa Fe, N. M., and Proskauer, Rose, Goetz & Mendelsohn, New York City, were on the brief for appellee Federal Pacific Electric Company in No. 7142.

Charles C. Spann, of Grantham, Spann & Sanchez, Albuquerque, N. M., was on the brief for appellees Foster Wheeler Corporation, Ingersoll-Rand Co., I-T-E Circuit Breaker Co., Kuhlman Electric Co. and Worthington Corporation in No. 7142.

Richard M. Davis, Lester R. Woodward and Thomas S. Nichols, of Lewis, Grant & Davis, Denver, Colo., were on the brief for appellant Westinghouse Electric Corporation in Nos. 7181, 7183, and 7185-7188.

John F. Shafroth, of Grant, Shafroth, Toll & McHendrie, Denver, Colo., was on the brief for appellant Carrier Corporation in No. 7181, appellant Allen-Bradley Co. in No. 7183, appellant Cutler-Hammer, Inc., in No. 7183, appellant Ingersoll-Rand Co. in No. 7181, appellant Joslyn Manufacturing and Supply Co. in No. 7188, appellant Porcelain Insulator Corporation in Nos. 7182 and 7184, appellant Southern States Equipment Corporation in No. 7188 and appellant Square D Co. in No. 7183.

Luis D. Rovira, of Akolt, Turnquist, Shepherd & Dick, Denver, Colo., was on the brief for appellants Foster Wheeler Corporation and Worthington Corporation in No. 7181.

Joseph G. Hodges, of Hodges, Silverstein, Hodges & Harrington, Denver, Colo., was on the brief for appellant Ohio Brass Company in Nos. 7182 and 7184, appellant McGraw-Edison Co. in Nos. 7182, 7184, 7185 and 7187, appellant Moloney Electric Co. in No. 7185, appellant Clark Controller Co. in No. 7183 and appellant Wagner Electric Corporation in Nos. 7185 and 7187.

Peter H. Holme, Jr., Donald C. McKinlay and Richard G. Wohlgenant, of Holme, Roberts, More & Owen, Denver, Colo., were on the brief for appellant General Electric Co. in Nos. 7182-7188.

Josiah G. Holland and William C. McClearn, of Holland & Hart, Denver, Colo., were on the brief for appellant I-T-E Circuit Breaker Co. in Nos. 7182, 7184, 7186 and 7188 and appellant Kuhlman Electric Co. in No. 7185.

Benjamin F. Stapleton and Hardin Holmes, of Ireland, Stapleton, Pryor & Holmes, Denver, Colo., were on the brief for appellant A. B. Chance Co. in Nos. 7182 and 7184 and appellant Federal Pacific Electric Co. in Nos. 7186 and 7188.

Guido Saveri, San Francisco, Cal., Calvin W. Rawlings and Brigham E. Roberts, Salt Lake City, Utah, were on the brief for appellants Brigham City Corporation, Logan City Corporation, St. George City Corporation, Price Municipal Corporation, and Heber City, Midway Town & Charleston Town, d/b/a Heber Light & Power Plant, in No. 7211.

Dallas H. Young, Jr., and Thomas S. Taylor, Provo, Utah, were on the brief for appellant in No. 7212.

Dennis McCarthy, of Van Cott, Bagley, Cornwell & McCarthy, Salt Lake City, Utah, was on the brief for appellee Allis-Chalmers Manufacturing Co. in No. 7211.

Peter W. Billings of Fabian & Clendenin, Salt Lake City, Utah, was on the brief for appellee General Electric Co. in Nos. 7211 and 7212.

Calvin A. Behle, of Parson, Behle, Evans & Latimer, Salt Lake City, Utah, was on the brief for appellee Westinghouse Electric Corporation in Nos. 7211 and 7212.

Robert D. Gast, Jr., of Lee, Bryans, Kelly & Stansfield, Denver, Colo., for appellee Public Service Co. of Colorado in Nos. 7181-7183, appellee Tucson Gas, Electric Light and Power Co. in No. 7181, appellee Cheyenne Light, Fuel and Power Co. in No. 7182 and appellee in No. 7186.

Clayton & Gilbert, Greeley, Colo., for appellee in No. 7184.

Louis Johnson, of Horn, Anderson & Johnson, Colorado Springs, Colo., for appellee in No. 7185.

Raphael J. Moses, of Moses & DeSouchet, Alamosa, Colo., for appellee in No. 7187 and appellee in No. 7188.

Before BREITENSTEIN, HILL and SETH, Circuit Judges.

Certiorari Denied June 10, 1963. See 83 S.Ct. 1695.

BREITENSTEIN, Circuit Judge.

These appeals are in treble-damage Clayton Act cases similar in nature to approximately 1,900 other suits brought in the federal courts throughout the country. The plaintiffs are purchasers of electrical equipment and the defendants are the manufacturers and suppliers of that equipment. The claims are that the manufacturers and suppliers secretly conspired to fix prices. The issue is whether fraudulent concealment of a cause of action under § 4 of the Clayton Act1 tolls the limitation periods fixed by §§ 4B and 5(b) of the Act as amended.2

In the New Mexico cases, Nos. 7140-7143, and the Utah cases, Nos. 7211 and 7212, the trial courts held that the running of the statutes was not tolled. In the Colorado cases, Nos. 7181-7188, the trial court reached the contrary conclusion. The point was raised by appropriate procedural devices in each case and we granted appeals from the interlocutory orders of the trial courts. Herein, the parties will be referred to as they appeared below.

The Second and Eighth Circuits, in similar cases, have held that the statute is tolled.3 No court of appeals has held to the contrary. The district courts are split on the issue.4

The argument for the plaintiffs is that the decisions in Bailey v. Glover, 21 Wall. 342, 88 U.S. 342, 22 L.Ed. 636, Exploration Company, Limited, v. United States, 247 U.S. 435, 38 S.Ct. 571, 62 L.Ed. 1200, and Holmberg v. Armbrecht, 327 U.S. 392, 66 S.Ct. 582, 90 L.Ed. 743, establish the principle that fraudulent concealment of a cause of action tolls a statute of limitations; that this rule is read into every federal statute of limitations;5 that the rule applies unless Congress provides to the contrary by unambiguous language; and that, as Congress did not provide to the contrary in setting up limitations for private Clayton Act suits, the rule is applicable to the cases before the court.

Defendants assert that the intent of Congress in the enactment of the pertinent statutes of limitations was to fix an absolute bar and to permit tolling only in the event of the exception which is contained in § 5(b) and which relates to situations wherein antitrust proceedings have been brought by the United States. The narrow issue is whether the Holmberg rule, that fraudulent concealment of a cause of action tolls a statute of limitations, is read into the statutes of limitations applicable to private Clayton Act suits because those statutes do not specifically reject the rule.

Before 1955, state statutes of limitations...

To continue reading

Request your trial
27 cases
  • King & King Enterprises v. Champlin Petroleum Co.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Oklahoma
    • February 7, 1978
    ...U.S. 392, 66 S.Ct. 582, 90 L.Ed. 743 (1946); Bailey v. Glover, 88 U.S. (21 Wall.) 342, 22 L.Ed. 636 (1874); Public Service Co. v. General Electric Co., 315 F.2d 306 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 374 U.S. 809, 83 S.Ct. 1695, 10 L.Ed.2d 1033 (1963); Atlantic City Electric Co. v. General Electric......
  • King & King Enterprises v. Champlin Petroleum Co.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Tenth Circuit
    • September 14, 1981
    ...this tolls every federal statute. Holmberg v. Armbrecht, 327 U.S. 392, 66 S.Ct. 582, 90 L.Ed. 743 (1946); Public Service Co. v. General Electric Co., 315 F.2d 306 (10th Cir. 1963), cert. denied, 374 U.S. 809, 83 S.Ct. 1695, 10 L.Ed.2d 1033; King and King Enterprises v. Champlin Petroleum Co......
  • Telex Corp. v. International Business Machines Corp.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of Oklahoma
    • November 9, 1973
    ...Waugh v. Guthrie Gas, Light, Fuel and Improvement Co., 37 Okl. 239, 131 P. 174, LRA 1917B, 1253. Cf. Public Service Co. of New Mexico v. General Electric Co., 315 F.2d 306 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 374 U.S. 809, 83 S.Ct. 1695, 10 L.Ed.2d 1033 I. CONCLUSIONS CONCERNING INFRINGEMENT OF COPYR......
  • Brick v. Dominion Mortg. & Rlty. Trust
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Western District of New York
    • November 29, 1977
    ...place heavy reliance on Holmberg v. Armbrecht, 327 U.S. 392, 66 S.Ct. 582, 90 L.Ed. 743 (1946), and Public Service Co. of New Mexico v. General Electric Co., 315 F.2d 306 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 374 U.S. 809, 83 S.Ct. 1695, 10 L.Ed.2d 1033 (1963). In Holmberg, suit was commenced pursuant......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
2 books & journal articles
  • Statute of Limitations
    • United States
    • ABA Antitrust Library Proving Antitrust Damages. Legal and Economic Issues. Third Edition Part I
    • December 8, 2017
    ...time she knew that she would be responsible for filing the grievance) (quoting Fed. Pac. Elec. Co. ); Public Serv. Co. v. Gen. Elec. Co., 315 F.2d 306, 310 (10th Cir. 1963) (holding that the fraudulent concealment doctrine applies to Section 4B); Atlantic City Elec. Co. v. Gen. Elec. Co., 3......
  • Table of Cases
    • United States
    • ABA Antitrust Library Proving Antitrust Damages. Legal and Economic Issues. Third Edition Part III
    • December 8, 2017
    ...1047 (6th Cir. 1986), 41 Publ’n Paper Antitrust Litig., In re , 690 F.3d 51 (2d Cir. 2012), 10, 13 Public Serv. Co. v. Gen. Elec. Co., 315 F.2d 306 (10th Cir. 1963), 71 Publication Paper Antitrust Litig., In re , No. 04-md-1631 (SRU), 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19896 (D. Conn. 2005), 73 R R. v. ......

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