Thomsen v. Union Castle Mail S.S. Co.
| Decision Date | 01 October 1908 |
| Docket Number | 195. |
| Citation | 166 F. 251 |
| Parties | THOMSEN et al. v. UNION CASTLE MAIL S.S. CO. et al. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit |
Lorenzo Ullo (Albert M. Yuzzolino, of counsel), for plaintiffs in error.
Convers & Kirlin and Thomas Thacher (J. Parker Kirlin, of counsel) for defendants in error.
Before LACOMBE, COXE, and NOYES, Circuit Judges.
The plaintiffs brought an action for the recovery of treble damages under the seventh section of the federal anti-trust statute. The case came to trial, and the plaintiffs put in a part of their testimony, when, over their objection, the trial court dismissed the complaint.
In determining whether there was error in this action, it must be assumed that the plaintiffs, had they been permitted to proceed, would have established that which they alleged unless negatived by their evidence or admissions upon the trial. The complaint alleges, in substance, that the defendants were engaged as carriers in the South African trade, and entered into a combination in restraint of foreign trade and commerce in violation of the act by means of a scheme under which they united as 'The South African Lines,' fixed rates, and shut off outside competition by requiring shippers to pay a percentage in addition to a reasonable freight rate which they should receive back in case-- and only in case-- they refrained from shipping by other lines.
The evidence shows the existence of a 'conference' for the purpose of fixing and maintaining rates and a return 'commission' to 'loyal' shippers. The manifest purpose of the combination was to prevent competition between members by maintaining uniform rates, and to eliminate the possibility of competition with other lines by requiring shippers to pay that which was equivalent to forfeit money. The combination, being in restraint of competition in foreign commerce, was in contravention of the federal anti-trust statute. As said by the Supreme Court of the United States in National Cotton Oil Company v Texas, 197 U.S. 115, 25 Sup.Ct. 379, 49 L.Ed. 689, in speaking of the purposes of the federal and state statutes against combinations:
See also, Northern Securities Case, 193 U.S. 197, 24 Sup.Ct. 436,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Central Telecommunications, Inc. v. TCI Cablevision, Inc.
...It is as unlawful to prevent a person from engaging in business as it is to drive him out of business. Thomsen v. Union Castle Mail S.S. Co., 2 Cir., 1908, 166 F. 251, 253. The restriction which defendants would place upon the meaning of the word "business" is unwarranted in the context of ......
-
Straus v. Victor Talking Mach. Co.
...in making these payments. ' Thomsen v. Cayser, 243 U.S. 66, 37 Sup.Ct. 353, 61 L.Ed. 597, Ann. Cas. 1917D, 322; also see 166 F. 251, 253, 92 C.C.A. 315; Chattanooga Foundry & Pipe Works v. City of 203 U.S. 390, 27 Sup.Ct. 65, 51 L.Ed. 241; Montague v. Lowry, 193 U.S. 38, 24 Sup.Ct. 307, 48 ......
-
International Wood Processors v. Power Dry, Civ. No. 82-2115-14.
...unlawful to prevent a person from engaging in business as it is to drive a person out of business." Thomsen v. Union Castle Mail S.S. Co., 166 F. 251, 253 (2d Cir.1908). An antitrust plaintiff in a market exclusion case is not precluded from proving damages as lost profits simply because it......
-
Biocad JSC v. F. Hoffmann-La Roche
...drive a person out of business." Am. Banana Co. v. United Fruit Co. , 166 F. 261, 264 (2d Cir. 1908) (quoting Thomsen v. Union Castle Mail S.S. Co. , 166 F. 251, 253 (2d Cir. 1908) ), aff’d 213 U.S. 347, 29 S.Ct. 511, 53 L.Ed. 826 (1909). Thus, nascent businesses or potential market entrant......