United States v. Schrader Son, No. 567

CourtUnited States Supreme Court
Writing for the CourtMcREYNOLDS
Citation64 L.Ed. 471,40 S.Ct. 251,252 U.S. 85
Decision Date01 March 1920
Docket NumberNo. 567
PartiesUNITED STATES v. A. SCHRADER'S SON, Inc

252 U.S. 85
40 S.Ct. 251
64 L.Ed. 471
UNITED STATES

v.

A. SCHRADER'S SON, Inc.

No. 567.
Argued Jan. 22 and 23, 1920.
Decided March 1, 1920.

Messrs. Henry S. Mitchell, of Washington, D. C., and Solicitor General Alex. C. King, of Atlanta, Ga., for the United States.

[Argument of Counsel from pages 85-89 intentionally omitted]

Page 89

Mr. Frank M. Avery, of New York City, for defendant in error.

[Argument of Counsel from pages 89-94 intentionally omitted]

Page 94

Mr. Justice McREYNOLDS delivered the opinion of the Court.

Defendant in error, a New York corporation, manufactured at Brooklyn, under letters patent, valves, gauges and other accessories for use in connection with automobile tires, and regularly sold and shipped large quantities of these to manufacturers and jobbers throughout the United States. It was indicted in the District Court, Northern District of Ohio, for engaging in a combination rendered criminal by section 1 of the Sherman Act of July 2, 1890 (26 Stat. 209, c. 6471), which declares illegal 'every contract, combination in the form of trust or otherwise, or conspiracy, in restraint of trade or commerce among the several states, or with foreign nations.' After interpreting the indictment as indicated by quotations from its opinion which follow, the District Court sustained a demurrer thereto, basing the judgment upon construction of that act (264 Fed. 175):

'The ubstantive allegations of this indictment are that defendant is engaged in manufacturing valves, valve parts, pneumatic pressure gauges, and various other accessories; that it sells and ships large quantites of such articles to tire manufactures and jobbers in the Northern district of Ohio and throughout the United States; that these tire manufacturers and jobbers resell and reship large quantities of these products to (a) jobbers and vehicle manufacturers, (b) retail dealers, and (c) to the public, both within and without the respective states into which the products are shipped; that these acts have been committed within three years next preceding the presentation of this indictment and within this district; that the defendant executed, and

Page 95

caused all the said tire manufacturers and jobbers to whom it sold its said products to execute with it, uniform contracts concerning resales of such products; that every manufacturer and jobber was informed by the defendant and well knew when executing such contracts that identical contracts were being executed and adhered to by the other manufacturers and jobbers; that these contracts thus executed purported to contain a grant of a license from the defendant to resell its said products at prices fixed by it to (a) jobbers and vehicle manufacturers similarly licensed, (b) retail dealers, and (c) the consuming public; that all these contracts provided (that the) [concerning] products thus sold to tire manufacturers and jobbers (provided) that they should not resell such products at prices other than those fixed by the defendant. Copies of these contracts are identified by exhibit numbers and attached to the indictment. It is further charged that the defendant furnished to the tire manufacturers and jobbers who entered into such contracts lists of uniform prices, such as are shown in said exhibits, which the defendant fixed for the resale of its said products to (a) jobbers and vehicle manufacturers, (b) retail dealers, and (c) the consuming public, respectively; and that the defendant uniformly refused to sell and ship its products to tire manufacturers and jobbers who did not enter into such contracts and adhere to the uniform resale prices fixed and listed by the defendant. Further, that tire manufacturers and jobbers in the Northern district of Ohio and throughout the United States uniformly resold defendant's products at uniform prices fixed by the defendant and uniformly refused to resell such products at lower pricers, whereby competition was suppressed and the prices of such products to retail dealers and the consuming public were maintained and enhanced. * * *

'Thus it will be observed that the contract, combination,

Page 96

or conspiracy charged comes...

To continue reading

Request your trial
102 practice notes
  • United States Brewers Ass'n, Inc. v. Healy, Civ. No. H-81-836.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. United States District Court (Connecticut)
    • 16 Febrero 1982
    ...95 L.Ed. 219 (1951) (Seagram refused to sell unless purchaser agreed to maximum resale price); United States v. A. Schrader's Son, Inc., 252 U.S. 85, 95, 40 S.Ct. 251, 252, 64 L.Ed. 471 (1920) (defendant executed uniform contracts with tire manufacturers); Dr. Miles Medical Co. v. John D. P......
  • State on Information of Dalton v. Miles Laboratories, No. 42152
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • 10 Octubre 1955
    ...between a mere refusal to sell and an agreement or understanding to fix or maintain retail prices [United States v. A. Schrader's Son, 252 U.S. 85, 99, 40 S.Ct. 251, 64 L.Ed. 471, 475], even though the path between the two may be narrow [United States v. Bausch & Lomb Optical Co., 321 U.S. ......
  • Klor's, Inc. v. Broadway-Hale Stores, No. 15380.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (9th Circuit)
    • 28 Marzo 1958
    ...v. Southern Photo Materials Co., 1927, 273 U.S. 359, 375, 47 S.Ct. 400, 404, 71 L.Ed. 684; United States v. Schrader's Son, Inc., 1920, 252 U.S. 85, 99, 40 S.Ct. 251, 253, 64 L.Ed. 471; cf. American Tobacco Co. v. United States, 1946, 328 U.S. 781, 808, 66 S.Ct. 1125, 1138, 90 L.Ed. 1575; F......
  • Workers' Compensation Ins. Antitrust Litigation, In re, No. 87-5378
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (8th Circuit)
    • 10 Febrero 1989
    ...may be found in a course of dealing or other circumstances as well as in an exchange of words. United States v. Schrader's Son, [Inc.], 252 U.S. 85, [99-100, 40 S.Ct. 251, 253, 64 L.Ed. 471 (1920) ]. Where the circumstances are such as to warrant a jury in finding that the conspirators had ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
101 cases
  • United States Brewers Ass'n, Inc. v. Healy, Civ. No. H-81-836.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. United States District Court (Connecticut)
    • 16 Febrero 1982
    ...95 L.Ed. 219 (1951) (Seagram refused to sell unless purchaser agreed to maximum resale price); United States v. A. Schrader's Son, Inc., 252 U.S. 85, 95, 40 S.Ct. 251, 252, 64 L.Ed. 471 (1920) (defendant executed uniform contracts with tire manufacturers); Dr. Miles Medical Co. v. John D. P......
  • State on Information of Dalton v. Miles Laboratories, No. 42152
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • 10 Octubre 1955
    ...between a mere refusal to sell and an agreement or understanding to fix or maintain retail prices [United States v. A. Schrader's Son, 252 U.S. 85, 99, 40 S.Ct. 251, 64 L.Ed. 471, 475], even though the path between the two may be narrow [United States v. Bausch & Lomb Optical Co., 321 U.S. ......
  • Klor's, Inc. v. Broadway-Hale Stores, No. 15380.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (9th Circuit)
    • 28 Marzo 1958
    ...v. Southern Photo Materials Co., 1927, 273 U.S. 359, 375, 47 S.Ct. 400, 404, 71 L.Ed. 684; United States v. Schrader's Son, Inc., 1920, 252 U.S. 85, 99, 40 S.Ct. 251, 253, 64 L.Ed. 471; cf. American Tobacco Co. v. United States, 1946, 328 U.S. 781, 808, 66 S.Ct. 1125, 1138, 90 L.Ed. 1575; F......
  • Workers' Compensation Ins. Antitrust Litigation, In re, No. 87-5378
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (8th Circuit)
    • 10 Febrero 1989
    ...may be found in a course of dealing or other circumstances as well as in an exchange of words. United States v. Schrader's Son, [Inc.], 252 U.S. 85, [99-100, 40 S.Ct. 251, 253, 64 L.Ed. 471 (1920) ]. Where the circumstances are such as to warrant a jury in finding that the conspirators had ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
  • RPM and the Rule of Reason: Ready or Not, Here We Come?
    • United States
    • Antitrust Bulletin Nbr. 55-1, March 2010
    • 1 Marzo 2010
    ...OF REASON :229e.g., Fed. Trade Comm’n v. Beech-Nut Packing Co., 257 U.S. 441, 452 (1922)(citing United States v. A. Schrader’s Son, Inc., 252 U.S. 85, 99 (1920), as havingestablished the proposition “that the essential agreement . . . might be impliedfrom a course of dealing or other circum......

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