Westmoreland Specialty Co. v. Missouri Glass Co.

• Decision Date: 31 December 1912
• Citation: 169 Mo. App. 368,152 S.W. 387
• Parties: WESTMORELAND SPECIALTY CO. v. MISSOURI GLASS CO.
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals

152 S.W. 387

169 Mo. A. 368

WESTMORELAND SPECIALTY CO. v. MISSOURI GLASS CO.

St. Louis Court of Appeals. Missouri.

December 31, 1912.

1. COMMERCE (§ 60) — STATE STATUTES — ANTI-TRUST LAWS.

A Missouri statute against pools and trusts cannot be invoked to invalidate a contract for the purchase and sale of goods in interstate commerce.

2. COMMERCE (§ 40) — INTERSTATE COMMERCE — WHAT CONSTITUTES.

Defendant, a Missouri corporation, purchased glassware of plaintiff to be shipped from plaintiff's works in Pennsylvania to defendant in Missouri, the goods being delivered to the carrier at Pittsburgh by plaintiff by defendant's direction. Held, that such transaction involved interstate commerce.

Appeal from St. Louis Circuit Court; Hugo Muench, Judge.

Action by the Westmoreland Specialty Company against the Missouri Glass Company. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff appeals. Reversed and remanded.

See, also, 147 S. W. 482.

E. T. & C. B. Allen, of St. Louis, for appellant. Geo. W. Lubke and Geo. W. Lubke, Jr., both of St. Louis, for respondent. Sears Lehmann, of St. Louis, for trustees in bankruptcy.

REYNOLDS, P. J.

This action was originally commenced before a justice of the peace on an account claimed to be due plaintiff by defendant. In that court defendant filed an answer, which, after a general denial, sets up that plaintiff was not authorized or licensed to transact business in the state of Missouri at the time covered by the account in suit and on that ground is not entitled to maintain the suit. Further answering, it is averred that at the time set out in plaintiff's statement and at the dates mentioned in the account attached to the statement, defendant made the purchase from plaintiff of the merchandise but that defendant had not paid for it in full and has refused and still refuses to do so, on the ground that during all the times alleged in the statement and covered by the account, plaintiff had become and was a member of a pool, trust, etc., in violation of the statutes of this state relating to pools, trusts, and conspiracies. Judgment was rendered in favor of plaintiff against defendant by the justice and the cause was thereafter appealed by defendant to the circuit court. In that court, over the objection and exception of plaintiff, the answer of defendant was amended by inserting in addition to the averment that plaintiff was in a pool, trust and conspiracy in violation of the statutes of the state of Missouri, the words "of the United States," so as to charge that plaintiff was in a pool, trust and combination created and carried on in violation of the statutes of the United States and of the statutes of the state of Missouri relating to pools, trusts and conspiracies. At the conclusion of the trial, which was before the court, a jury being waived, the court found for defendant. Interposing a motion for new trial and saving exception to that being overruled, plaintiff duly perfected its appeal to the Supreme Court.

That court, adopting the opinion of Mr. Commissioner Bond, transferred the cause to this court, holding that the amount involved being under $7,500, and as there was no question which was within the jurisdiction of that court, its determination belonged to this court. See Westmoreland Specialty Co. v. Missouri Glass Co., 147 S. W. 482. After the case reached our court, the respondent was adjudged bankrupt, and its trustees have entered their appearance here.

The learned trial judge sets out in a memorandum filed in the cause and which is before us, that the Missouri statute against pools and trusts could not be invoked in this case because the purchase of the goods was admittedly made in the state of Pennsylvania, and that no duty devolved upon plaintiff corporation to subject itself to the laws of Missouri. Undoubtedly he is correct in this conclusion, having found as a fact that the transaction occurred in Pennsylvania and not in Missouri. See International Text-Book Co. v. Gillespie, 229 Mo. 397, 129 S. W. 922; United Shoe Machinery Co. v. Ramlose, 231 Mo. 508, loc. cit. 539, 132 S. W. 1143; National Lead Co....