Sunbury Wire Rope Mfg. Co. v. United States Steel Corp., Civ. A. No. 16933.

• Decision Date: 24 March 1955
• Docket Number: Civ. A. No. 16933.
• Citation: 129 F. Supp. 425
• Parties: SUNBURY WIRE ROPE MANUFACTURING COMPANY, Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES STEEL CORPORATION, The Youngstown Sheet and Tube Company, Detroit Steel Corporation, John A. Roebling's Sons Corporation, Bethlehem Steel Company, Jones & Laughlin Steel Corporation, Union Wire Rope Corporation, Wire Rope Corporation of America Incorporated, Universal Wire Products, Inc., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Pennsylvania

129 F. Supp. 425

SUNBURY WIRE ROPE MANUFACTURING COMPANY, Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES STEEL CORPORATION, The Youngstown Sheet and Tube Company, Detroit Steel Corporation, John A. Roebling's Sons Corporation, Bethlehem Steel Company, Jones & Laughlin Steel Corporation, Union Wire Rope Corporation, Wire Rope Corporation of America Incorporated, Universal Wire Products, Inc., Defendants.

Civ. A. No. 16933.

United States District Court, E. D. Pennsylvania.

March 9, 1955.

Reargument Denied March 24, 1955.

Earl G. Harrison, Edward W. Mullinix, of Schnader, Harrison, Segal & Lewis, Philadelphia, Pa., for plaintiff.

John B. Martin, of Duane, Morris & Heckscher, Philadelphia, Pa., for U. S. Steel Corp.

Arthur Littleton, of Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, Philadelphia, Pa., for The Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co.

Philip H. Strubing, of Pepper, Bodine, Frick, Scheetz & Hamilton, Philadelphia, Pa., for Bethlehem Steel Co.

R. Sturgis Ingersoll, of Ballard, Spahr, Andrews & Ingersoll, Philadelphia, Pa., for Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp. James S. Clifford, Jr., of MacCoy, Evans & Lewis, Philadelphia, Pa., for Universal Wire Products, Inc.

J. Wesley McWilliams of McWilliams, Wagoner & Troutman, Philadelphia, Pa., for Union Wire Rope Corp. and Wire Rope Corp. of America, Inc.

John G. Williams and Charles J. Biddle, of Drinker, Biddle & Reath, Philadelphia, Pa., for Detroit Steel Corp.

H. Francis DeLone, of Barnes, Dechert, Price, Myers & Rhoads, Philadelphia, Pa., for John A. Roebling's Sons, Corp.

GRIM, District Judge.

This is a private anti-trust suit against eight defendants, one of which is Detroit Steel Corporation.

Detroit Steel Corporation (Detroit) is incorporated in Michigan where it has its principal office. It has never registered to do business in Pennsylvania. It has never appointed an agent to receive service of process in Pennsylvania. It has never had an officer or a resident salesman in Pennsylvania. It has never had a telephone listing or bank account in Pennsylvania and has done no local advertising in Pennsylvania. However, as a part of its sales transactions it has delivered a substantial amount of its product in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. As a result of sales agreements entered into outside of Pennsylvania, in 1953 it delivered $387,829.35 worth of steel in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania and in the first nine months of 1954 it delivered $206,474.23 worth of steel there. A large part of this steel was delivered to the plant of the General Electric Company in Allentown in the Eastern District pursuant to an agreement of sale between Detroit and the General Electric Company, which was negotiated and entered into at Schenectady, New York. All the rest of the steel which Detroit shipped into the Eastern District of Pennsylvania was sent to customers there by reason of agreements of sale entered into outside the Eastern District of Pennsylvania and because of allocations by the National Production Authority during the time when there was a shortage of steel resulting from the Korean war. Detroit did no soliciting of business in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. Occasionally agents of Detroit visited its customers in the Eastern District for good will purposes, but not for the purpose of soliciting business there.

Detroit has filed a motion to dismiss the action against it contending no proper venue exists as to it in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. Plaintiff contends that venue is proper in this District under Section 12 of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C.A. § 22, which provides in pertinent part:

"Any suit * * * under the antitrust laws against a corporation may be brought * * * in any judicial district wherein it * * * transacts business".

Plaintiff contends that the activities of Detroit in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania constitute the transacting of business therein. Detroit contends that they do not. Does a corporation which delivers a substantial amount of its product into a judicial district, as a result of orders obtained outside a judicial district, "transact" business therein within the venue section of the Clayton Act when it does no soliciting there and performs no other substantial activity there?

In construing the venue clause of the Clayton Act the Supreme Court said in Eastman Kodak Co. v. Southern Photo Materials Co., 273 U.S. 359, at page 373, 47 S.Ct. 400, at page 403, 71 L.Ed. 684, "that a corporation is engaged in transacting business in a district, within the meaning of this section * * * if in fact, in the ordinary and usual sense, it `transacts business' therein of any substantial character." In United States v. Scophony Corp., 333 U.S. 795, at page 807, 68 S. Ct....