United States v. Addyston Pipe & Steel Co.
Decision Date | 08 February 1898 |
Docket Number | 498. |
Citation | 85 F. 271 |
Parties | UNITED STATES V. ADDYSTON PIPE & STEEL CO. et al. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit |
This was a proceeding in equity, begun by petition filed by the attorney general, on behalf of the United States, against six corporations engaged in the manufacture of cast-iron pipe charging them with a combination and conspiracy in unlawful restraint of interstate commerce in such pipe, in violation of the so-called 'Anti-Trust Law,' passed by congressJuly 2, 1890.The defendants were the Addyston Pipe & Steel Company, of Cincinnati, Ohio; Dennis Long & Co., of Louisville, Ky.; the Howard-Harrison Iron Company, of Bessemer, Ala.; the Anniston Pipe & Foundry Company, of Anniston, Ala.; the South Pittsburgh Pipe Works, of South Pittsburg, Tenn.; and the Chattanooga Foundry & Pipe Works of Chattanooga, Tenn.The petition prayed that all pipe sold and transported from one state to another, under the combination and conspiracy described therein, be forfeited to the petitioner, and be seized and confiscated in the manner provided by law, and that a decree be entered dissolving the unlawful conspiracy of defendants, and perpetually enjoining them from operating under the same, and from selling said cast-iron pipe in accordance therewith to be transported from one state into another.The defendants filed a joint and separate demurrer to the petition in so far as it prayed for the confiscation of goods in transit, on the ground that such proceedings, under the anti-trust act, are not to be had in a court of equity but in a court of law.In addition to the demurrer, the defendants filed a joint and separate answer, in which they admitted the existence of an association between them for the purpose of avoiding the great losses they would otherwise sustain, due to ruinous competition between defendants, but denied that their association was in restraint of trade state or interstate, or that it was organized to create a monopoly, and denied it was a violation of the anti-trust act of congress.Testimony in the form of affidavits was submitted by petitioner and defendants, and, by stipulation, it was agreed that the final hearing might be had thereon.Judge Clark, who presided in the circuit court, dismissed the petition on the merits.His opinion is reported in 78 F. 712.
From the minutes of the association, a copy of which was put in evidence by the petitioner, it appeared that prior to December 28, 1894, the Anniston Company, the Howard-Harrison Company, the Chattanooga Company, and the South Pittsburg Company had been associated as the Southern Associated Pipe Works.Upon that date the Addyston Company and Dennis Long & Co. were admitted to membership, and the following plan was then adopted:
List of Bonuses.
'On motion of Mr. Llewellyn, the bonuses on all city work as specially reserved shall be $2.00 per ton.'
The states, for sales in which, bonuses had to be paid into the association were called 'pay' territory, as distinguished from 'free' territory, in which defendants were at liberty to make sales without restriction and without paying any bonus.The by-laws provided for an auditor of the association, whose duty it was to keep account of the business done by each shop both in pay and free territory.On the 1st and 16th of each month, he was required to send to each shop 'a statement of all shipments reported in the previous half month, with a balance sheet showing the total amount of the premiums on shipments, the division of the same, and debit, credit, balance of each company. ' The system of bonuses, as a means of restricting competition and maintaining prices, was not successful.A change was therefore made by which prices were to be fixed for each contract by the association, and, except in reserved cities, the bidder was determined by competitive bidding of the members, the one agreeing to give the highest bonus for division among the others getting the contract.The plan was embodied in a resolution passed May 27, 1895, in the words following: ...
To continue reading
Request your trialUnlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete case access with no limitations or restrictions
-
AI-generated case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Comprehensive legal database spanning 100+ countries and all 50 states
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Verified citations and treatment with CERT citator technology

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete case access with no limitations or restrictions
-
AI-generated case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Comprehensive legal database spanning 100+ countries and all 50 states
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Verified citations and treatment with CERT citator technology

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete case access with no limitations or restrictions
-
AI-generated case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Comprehensive legal database spanning 100+ countries and all 50 states
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Verified citations and treatment with CERT citator technology

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete case access with no limitations or restrictions
-
AI-generated case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Comprehensive legal database spanning 100+ countries and all 50 states
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Verified citations and treatment with CERT citator technology

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete case access with no limitations or restrictions
-
AI-generated case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Comprehensive legal database spanning 100+ countries and all 50 states
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Verified citations and treatment with CERT citator technology

Start Your 7-day Trial
-
In re Jet 1 Center, Inc.
...Apex Hosiery Co. v. Leader, 310 U.S. 469, 60 S.Ct. 982, 992, 84 L.Ed. 1311, 128 A.L.R. 1044, and note 15 (1940); United States v. Addyston Pipe & Steel Co., 6 Cir., 85 F. 271. 85 F. 271, 46 L.R.A. 122, affirmed 175 U.S. 211, 20 S.Ct. 96, 44 L.Ed. 136 (1899); Standard Oil Co. v. United State......
-
United States v. Standard Oil Co.
...among producers, in the often quoted passage of his opinion in the Circuit Court of Appeals in United States v. Addyston Pipe & Steel Co., 6 Cir., 85 F. 271, 291, 46 L.R.A. 122."28 The harm to the public is gauged by the effect of the practices on the free flow of goods in interstate commer......
-
United States v. International Harvester Co.
... ... International Flax Twine Company, the Wisconsin Steel ... Company, the Wisconsin Lumber Company, the Illinois Northern ... Railway Company, the ... flow from free competition.' ... And ... this was reiterated in Addyston Pipe Co. v. United ... States, 175 U.S. 211, 237, 20 Sup.Ct. 96, 44 L.Ed. 136 ... In ... ...
-
Whitwell v. Continental Tobacco Co.
... ... CONTINENTAL TOBACCO CO. et al. No. 1,902. United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit. November 12, 1903 ... 340, 342, 17 Sup.Ct. 540, 41 L.Ed. 1007; Addyston Pipe & ... Steel Co. v. U.S., 175 U.S. 211, 234, 20 ... ...
-
Is Amway an illegal pyramid scheme and does its marketing program illegally restrict competition and fix prices?
...per se as horizontal divisions of market. See United States v. Topco Associates, Inc., 405 U.S. 596 (1972); United States v. Addyston Pipe & Steel Co., 85 F. 271 (6th Cir. 1898), aff'd., 175 U.S. 211 (1899). Complaint Counsel claim that the ADA was formed before Amway, and that therefore th......
-
Writing for Mealey's, Tom Bush Analyzes Antitrust Issues with Joint Underwriting
...103 F.3d 42, 47-48 (7th Cir. 1997). 45. United States v. Topco Associates, 405 U.S. 596, 608 (1972). 46. United States v. Addyston Pipe & Steel Co., 85 F. 271, 282 (6th Cir. 1998), aff’d, 175 U.S. 211 Rothery Storage & Van Co. v. Atlas Van Lines, 792 F.2d 210, 224, 229 (D.C. Cir. 1986); Pol......
-
Using Joint Venture Analysis to Limit Antitrust Risks of Energy Sector Collaborations
...because they are made to secure each venture partner’s “entire effort in the common enterprise.” United States v. Addyston Pipe & Steel Co., 85 F. 271, 280 (6th Cir. 1898), aff’d as modified 175 U.S. 211 (1899). See also Dagher, 547 U.S. at 7-8 (joint venture’s pricing decisions were clearl......
-
The FTC Sets Its Sights On Noncompete Agreements, Launches First Major Standalone Section 5 Claims
...https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/ftc_gov/pdf/p201000noncompetewilsondissent.pdf. 17. See, e.g., United States v. Addyston Pipe & Steel Co., 85 F. 271, 281 (6th Cir. 1898) (Taft, J.) (explaining that employment noncompete agreements "are generally upheld as valid"); Snow v. Align Tech., Inc.......
-
Antitrust Time Travel: Entry & Potential Competition
...Oil Co., 105 F.2d 809 (7th Cir. 1939), rev’d , 310 U.S. 150 (1940). 47 Id. at 828. 48 United States v. Addyston Pipe & Steel Co., 85 F. 271, 292 (6th Cir. 1898), aff’d as modified , 175 U.S. 211 (1899). 2023] ANTITRUST TIME TRAVEL 157 ply of [new] imports as the price of ingot rose,” yet “w......
-
An Overview: The Standard of Review
...Act] provided.”). 20. See Broadcast Music, Inc. v. CBS, Inc., 441 U.S. 1, 22-23 (1979). 21. See United States v. Addyston Pipe & Steel Co., 85 F. 271, 282-83 (6th Cir. 1898), aff’d as modified , 175 U.S. 211 (1899); see also Northwest Wholesale Stationers v. Pac. Stationery & Printing Co., ......
-
Sherman Act Claims: Elements and Analytical Framework
...87. Jones v. Nat’l Collegiate Athletic Ass’n, 392 F. Supp. 295, 303-05 (D. Mass. 1975). 88. United States v. Addyston Pipe & Steel Co., 85 F. 271 (6th Cir. 1898), aff’d , 175 U.S. 211 (1899). 89. Id. at 280. 90. Rothery Storage & Van Co. v. Atlas Van Lines, Inc., 792 F.2d 210 (D.C. Cir. 198......
-
Thomas A. Piraino, Jr., the Antitrust Analysis of Joint Ventures After the Supreme Court's Daugher Decision
...cert. denied, 474 U.S. 945 (1985). 64 See cases cited infra note 73. 65 See cases cited infra note 73. 66 See cases cited infra note 73. 67 85 F. 271 (6th Cir. 1898), aff'd, 175 U.S. 211 (1899). 68 Id. at 301-02. 69 See id. at 282-83 (asserting that restraints meant only to restrain competi......