Federal Anti-Trust Decisions (Volume 7) (Paperback)

Purchase of this book includes free trial access to www.million-books.com where you can read more than a million books for free. This is an OCR edition with typos. Excerpt from book: 1ndex?Digest. 50. It does not matter that a combination embraces restraint of trade within a single State if it also embraces and is directed against commerce among the States. Swift A Co. v. i'nitcd States, 196 U. S., 375. 2?641 51. Applies to Combinations in a Territory Operating in a Single City.?Sherman Law, prohibiting combinations or conspiracies in restraint of trade or commerce in any territory of the United States, was not limited to combinations and conspiracies which operated in restraint of the trade of substantially an entire territory, but applied as well to a combination and conspiracy in restraint of trade and commerce in a single city in a territory. Tribolet v. U. S., 95 Pac. Rep., 88. 3?322 52. Same.?Where defendant and !l. entered into a combination and conspiracy in restraint of trade to control the meat business in Phoenix, Ariz., and for this purpose organized a corporation, the fact that defendant acted merely as an officer and stockholder in such corporation, and that the corporation was held not guilty, did not prevent defendant's conviction for violating the Sherman Law, prohibiting a combination or conspiracy in restraint of trade. Ib. 3?323 53. Agreements or combinations between dealers, having for their sole purpose the destruction of competition and fixing of prices, are injurious to the public interest and void; nor are they saved by advantages which the participants expect to derive from the enhanced price to the consumer. Dr. Afiicx Medical Co. v. John D. Park t Sons Co., 220 U. S.. 408. 4?31 64. Same?Restraint of Trade.?Although the earlier common-law doctrine in regard to restraint of trade has been substantially modified, the public interest is still the first consideration; to sustain the restraint it must be reason...