United States v. King
| Decision Date | 25 April 1916 |
| Docket Number | 1047. |
| Parties | UNITED STATES v. KING et al. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Massachusetts |
Herbert Parker, of Boston, Mass., for defendants.
This indictment relates to the same alleged combination or conspiracy in restraint of trade on which the previous indictment in this court against the same defendants was based. Much of what was said in the opinion on the demurrer in that case applies here and need not be restated.
The present indictment describes more fully than the former one the membership and objects of the Aroostook Potato Shippers' Association, the reasons for blacklisting by that association, and the persons affected by the blacklist. The reasons for blacklisting as now alleged are, broadly speaking, unreasonable failure to pay to members money lawfully due, unreasonable refusal to accept and pay for potatoes duly shipped, and deductions from agreed prices claimed by receivers upon improper grounds; and the decision whether the facts in any given transaction warrant blacklisting is made by the listing committee of the association without notice, and without hearing the receiver thereby affected. A receiver of Aroostook potatoes whose action under contracts between himself and members of the association is disapproved by the listing committee may be blacklisted by it. Once blacklisted, nobody in the association can deal with him in Aroostook county potatoes under penalty of possible blacklisting, and of fines rapidly increasing in severity for successive dealings; and nobody outside the association can deal with him, in such potatoes without also being subject to blacklisting. In these respects the present indictment is somewhat stronger in its allegations than the previous one which was held good on demurrer.
It is now contended by the defendants that their association is an agricultural organization within the Clayton Act, and that they are not therefore subject to prosecution, even assuming that otherwise they would be. That act provides as follows:
Act Oct. 15, 1914, c. 323, § 6, 38 Stat. 731 (Comp.St.1916, § 8835f).
The defendants...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
LOCAL 36 OF INTERNAT'L FISHERMEN, ETC. v. United States
...S.Ct. 172, 65 L.Ed. 349, 16 A.L.R. 196; Swift and Company v. United States, 196 U.S. 375, 396, 25 S.Ct. 276, 49 L.Ed. 518; United States v. King, D.C., 250 F. 908, 910; Mid-West Theatres Co. v. Co-operative Theatres of Michigan, Inc., D.C., 43 F. Supp. 216, 222. 24 Duplex Printing Press Com......
-
Fairdale Farms, Inc. v. Yankee Milk, Inc.
...Cranberry Ass'n, 119 F.Supp. 900, 907 (D.Mass.1954); United States v. Dairy Co-Op Ass'n, 49 F.Supp. 475 (D.Ore.1943); United States v. King, 250 F. 908, 910 (D.Mass.1916). Even the Federal Trade Commission, ever in the vanguard of the attack on monopolization, has stated that if an agricult......
-
Maryland and Virginia Milk Producers Association, Inc v. United States United States v. Maryland and Virginia Milk Producers Association, Inc, s. 62
...it gives such an entity full freedom to engage in predatory trade practices at will. See United States v. King, D.C., 229 F. 275; D.C., 250 F. 908, 910. Cf. United States v. Borden Co., 308 U.S. 188, 203—205, 60 S.Ct. 182, 190—191, 84 L.Ed. The Capper-Volstead Act of 1922 extended § 6 of th......
-
Treasure Val. Potato Bar. Ass'n v. Ore-Ida Foods, Inc.
...it gives such an entity full freedom to engage in predatory trade practices at will. See United States v. King, 1 Cir. 229 F. 275, D.C., 250 F. 908, 910. Cf. United States v. Borden Co., 308 U.S. 188, 203-205 60 S.Ct. 182, 190-191, 84 L. Ed. The Capper-Volstead Act of 1922 extended § 6 of t......
-
Antitrust and Agriculture
...and limited the exemption’s value to producers. See, e.g., United States v. King, 229 F. 275 (D. Mass. 1915); United States v. King, 250 F. 908 (D. Mass. 1916); see also Duplex Printing Press Co. v. Deering, 254 U.S. 443 (1921) (narrowly construing the Clayton Act provisions as applied to l......
-
Table of Cases
...v. Joint Traffic Ass’n, 171 U.S. 505 (1898), 3, 138, 329 United States v. King, 229 F. 275 (D. Mass. 1915), 209 United States v. King, 250 F. 908 (D. Mass. 1916), 209 United States v. LSL Biotechnologies, 379 F.3d 672 (9th Cir. 2004), 32, 36, 37 United States v. Lykes Bros. S.S. Co., 1995 W......