United States v. Schrader Son
Decision Date | 01 March 1920 |
Docket Number | No. 567,567 |
Citation | 64 L.Ed. 471,40 S.Ct. 251,252 U.S. 85 |
Parties | UNITED STATES v. A. SCHRADER'S SON, Inc |
Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
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] Mr. Frank M. Avery, of New York City, for defendant in error.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 89-94 intentionally omitted] 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 Court further said:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
United States v. Bausch Lomb Optical Co Lens Co v. United States
...to sell.' 250 U.S. at pages 302, 306, 307, 39 S.Ct. at pages 466—468, 63 L.Ed. 992, 7 A.L.R. 443. Cf. United States v. A. Schrader's Sons, 252 U.S. 85, 99, 40 S.Ct. 251, 253, 64 L.Ed. 471. The Beech-Nut case recognizes that a simple refusal to sell to others who do not maintain the first se......
-
Federal Trade Commission v. Cement Institute
...in Dr. Miles Medical Co. v. John D. Park & Sons Co., 220 U.S. 373, 31 S.Ct. 376, 55 L.Ed. 502, and United States v. Schrader's Son, Inc., 252 U.S. 85, 40 S.Ct. 251, 64 L.Ed. 471, the latter a suit brought under § 1 of the Sherman Act. Again in 1926 this Court sustained a Commission unfair-m......
-
United States v. Uniroyal, Inc.
...1024 (1944); United States v. Univis Lens Co., 316 U.S. 241, 62 S.Ct. 1088, 86 L.Ed. 1408 (1942); United States v. A. Schrader's Son, Inc., 252 U.S. 85, 40 S.Ct. 251, 64 L.Ed. 471 (1920); Dr. Miles Medical Co. v. John D. Park & Sons Co., 220 U.S. 373, 31 S.Ct. 376, 55 L.Ed. 502 (1911). The ......
-
Pub Co v. United States United States v. Pub Co
...Co. v. Southern Photo Materials Co., 1927, 273 U.S. 359, 375, 47 S.Ct. 400, 404, 71 L.Ed. 684; United States v. A. 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. ......
-
What Constitutes a Conspiracy?
...endorsed by courts have expressed this principle. 96 92 . American Tobacco , 328 U.S. at 809-10 (citing United States v. Schrader’s Son, 252 U.S. 85 (1920)). 93 . United States v. Ashland-Warren, Inc., 537 F. Supp. 433, 442-43 (M.D. Tenn. 1982) (also noting that “[a]lthough an express agree......
-
Table of Cases
...Rose, 449 F.3d 627 (5th Cir. 2006), 26 , 56 United States v. Sax, 39 F.3d 1380 (7th Cir. 1994), 55 , 57 United States v. Schrader’s Son, 252 U.S. 85 (1920), 38 United States v. Silverman, 861 F.2d 571 (9th Cir. 1988), 114 United States v. SKW Metals & Alloys, Inc., 195 F.3d 83 (2d Cir. 1999......
-
Colorado's Era: Off the Pedestal and Into the Courts
...P.2d 457, 460 (1974), citing Reed v. Reed, 404 U.S. 71, 92 S.Ct. 251, 30 L.Ed.2d 225, quoting Royster Guano Co. v. Virginia, 253 U.S. 412,40 S.Ct. 251, 64 L.Ed. 989. See also, supra, note 1298 10, dissent. 30. Darrin v. Gould, 85 Wash. 2d 859, 540 P.2d 882, 893 (1975); Henderson v. Henderso......
-
Rewriting the law of resale price maintenance: the Kodak decision and transaction cost economics.
...agreement, combination, or conspiracy might be implied from a course of dealing"); see also United States v. A. Schrader's Son, Inc., 252 U.S. 85, 97 (1920) ("The tacit acquiescence of the wholesalers and retailers in the prices thus fixed is the equivalent for all practical purposes of an ......