Index-Digest constant stream of commerce from State to State, in which, he claimed, the apparatus transported was not a mere incident, but sometimes more important than the performers. Held, that the claim that the case came within the Sherman Act was not frivolous, and that the bill should not have been dismissed by the District Court for want of jurisdiction. Ib. 707 8. Held to State Plain Case of Conspiracy and Actionable Wrong.— The bill showed in substance that the defendants, for the purpose of winning a strike called by the defendant labor union over terms and conditions of employment in plaintiffs' restaurant, conspired to injure or destroy the business by inducing actual and prospective customers to withhold their patronage, and to that end caused the restaurant to be picketed by men who, throughout business hours, were stationed at the entrance proclaiming in a loud voice its "unfairness " to union labor, and who patrolled the sidewalk before it and, by word of mouth and through banners and handbills, made and circulated abusive and libelous attacks upon the plaintiffs, their business, their employees and customers, with threats of like consequences to future customers; and that much injury to the business resulted. Held, that the bill stated a plain case of conspiracy and actionable wrong. Truax v. Corrigan, 257 U. S. 327. 409 BILL OF EXCEPTIONS. 1. When May Be Signed after Allowance of Writ of Error.-If a bill of exceptions is signed during the term at which the case was tried, it is not subject to objection in the appellate court on the ground that it was signed after the writ of error was sued out. Lyons v. U. S. Shipping Board, 278 F. 146. 532 BILL POSTERS. 1. Combination of, to Destroy Competition in Posting Bills, in Violation of Sherman Act.-A combination of many billposters, throughout the United States and Canada, to destroy competition in the business of posting bills and to secure a monopoly, by limiting and restricting commerce in posters to channels dictated by them, to exclude others from the trade, and to enrich themselves by demanding noncompetitive prices, held violative of the Sherman Act. Ramsay Co. v. Associated Bill Posters, 260 U. S. 511. 186 2. Combination of, to Prevent Transportation of Posters, in Restraint of Trade, Illegal.-A combination between billposters in various States, under which it was agreed that the members would not deal with any lithographers who dealt with any independent billposter, prevented posters from being Index-Digest transported from State to State, except for erection on billboards by the members, and is a restraint on interstate commerce, in violation of the Sherman Act. Sullivan v. Associated Bill Posters, 272 F. 326. 254 3. Agreement between, Not to Accept Business Except That Obtained by Their Solicitors, Not Unlawful.-An agreement by members of a billposter's association to accept only business obtained by their licensed solicitors imposes no restraint on interstate commerce, and independent solicitors, who are thereby deprived of their business, can not recover treble damages under the Sherman Act, though other provisions of the billposter's agreement not affecting plaintiffs did restrain interstate commerce. Sullivan v. Associated Bill Posters, 272 F. 329. 258 BRIEF. 1. When Filing of, Held a General Appearance for Defendant Duly Served. The filing of a brief, subscribed by solicitors as "solicitors for the defendants," held to have been on behalf of the one defendant duly served, and not to have intended, or to have operated, as a general appearance for another defendant not duly served. General Investment Co. v. Lake Shore & M. S. Ry. Co., 260 U. S. 270. 195 BROKERAGE FEES. 1. Payment of, by Steamship Company, Not Interstate or Foreign Commerce. The payment by steamship companies of commissions or brokerage fees on shipments secured through freight brokers, who act as agents for shippers is not interstate or foreign commerce, and an indictment against steamship companies doing business through the port of New York and members of the Steamship Freight Brokers' Association charging a conspiracy in restraint of interstate and foreign commerce, based on an alleged agreement that the steamship companies will allow a brokerage fee only to members of the association, which is limited in numbers, but which does not allege that the steamship companies refuse shipments from any other broker or shipper, or that there is any agreement restraining competition in rates, held not to charge any offense under the Sherman Act, section 3. U. S. v. Moore, 275 F. 995. 331 CAUSE OF ACTION. 1. Petition for Damages under Sherman Act, Held Not to State.In an action under Sherman Act, section 7, authorizing recovery for violation of the act by "any person who shall be injured in his business or property," a petition which alleged a combination and conspiracy by defendants in Index-Digest violation of the act to monopolize the business of buying and selling livestock and the distribution of fresh meats, and that by reason thereof plaintiff had been injured in his business of raising, buying and selling livestock in the amount of $25,000, but which failed to allege any facts showing in what manner or to what extent he was injured by the alleged acts of defendant, held not to state a cause of action. Jack v. Armour & Co., 291 F. 743. 1043 "CHECK-OFF SYSTEM." 1. Raising of Funds by, to Destroy Competition, Held Subject to Injunction. Where mine operators and a miners' organization were charged with conspiring in unlawful efforts to unionize and destroy competition of mines in another State, it was no reason to refuse to enjoin sending of funds by the miners' organization to advance such efforts that such funds were spent for food, and not for arms and ammunition purchased by the miners in such other State; and the raising of such funds by the "check-off system "-the retention thereof by the operator from the wages of the miner and paying over sums retained to the miners' union-held subject to injunction. Borderland Coal Corp. v. United Mine Workers, 275 F. 873. 296 CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS. 1. No Power to Dismiss Complaint on Error.-The Circuit Court of Appeals in a proceeding in error has no power to dismiss the complaint, but can only order a new trial. Eastman Kodak Co. v. Blackmore, 277 F. 699. 501 CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE. 1. Violation of Strike Injunction May Be Shown by.-Contempt may be proved by circumstantial evidence, and evidence that employees of the railroad company passed along the street in front of respondent's shop, going to and from their work, is sufficient to show that they saw and were annoyed and insulted by the placard, which remained in the window for nearly two months. U. S. v. Taliaferro, 290 F. 218. 982 CLAYTON ACT. 1. Suit under, to Enjoin Violation of, Can Be Brought Only in Federal Court.-Under section 16 of the Clayton Act, a private suit to enjoin a violation of that act or of the Sherman Act can only be brought in a Federal court. Such a suit can not be brought in a State court. General Investment Co. v. Lake Shore & M. S. Ry. Co., 260 U. S. 287. 210 2. Applicable to Suit Pending at Time of Enactment.-The Clayton Act, in so far as it grants relief by injunction to private suitors, or affixes conditions and otherwise modifies the Sher Index-Digest man Act, is applicable to a suit for an injunction pending at the time of its enactment. Duplex Printing Press Co. v. Deering, 254 U. S. 464. 131 3. Applies to Decree of Injunction Pending on Appeal at Time of Its Enactment.-A decree of injunction in a labor controversy was entered in the District Court before the date of the Clayton Act, but was pending on appeal in the Circuit Court of Appeals when the act was approved. Held, that the plaintiff had no vested right in the decree, and that the act was to be regarded in determining the appeal. American Steel Foundries v. Tri-City Trades Council, 257 U. S. 201. 385 4. In Giving Right to Jury Trial in Contempt Proceedings, Held Unconstitutional.-Under Constitution, article 3, sections 1 and 2, as to the judicial power, that portion of the Clayton Act sections 21 and 22, giving a jury trial to persons charged with contempt in violating an injunctional order of the Federal District Court, held unconstitutional. In re Atchison, 284 F. 607. 814 5. Sections 20 to 22, Providing Trial by Jury for Violating Injunctions, Unconstitutional.-Clayton Act, sections 20 to 22, providing for trial by jury for violation of injunction in disputes concerning terms or conditions of employment, is unconstitutional, under Constitution, article 3, sections 1 and 2, as courts, when created, receive their judicial power from the Constitution, and Congress can not deprive parties in equity of right of trial by chancellor; enforcement of decree by contempt proceeding being an inherent power of an equity court. Michaelson v. U. S. ex rel. Ry. Co., 291 F. 946. 1055 6. Under, in Application for Injunction, Formal Motion by Counsel Need Not Be Verified.-Under Clayton Act, section 20, requiring the application for restraining order or injunction in suits between employer and employees concerning terms or conditions of employment to be sworn to, the verified bill may be taken as the application, and together with affidavits submitted and other evidence offered may be considered, and the formal motion by counsel need not be verified. N. Y., N. H. & H. R. Co. v. American Federation of Labor, 288 F. 591. 923 7. Provision in, Making Former Decree, Prima Facie Evidence, Only a Rule of Evidence. The provision of Clayton Act, section 5, that a decree in a suit by the United States dissolving a combination shall be prima facie evidence in an action for damages as to all matters respecting which the decree would be an estoppel between the parties thereto, is only a rule of evidence, and does not give conclusions of Index-Digest law embodied in the decree more than the force of precedents, nor give the facts therein effect to override allegation of facts in the complaint for damages. Sullivan v. Associated Bill Posters, 272 F. 328. 257 8. In Action under, When Court Will Determine Nature of Former Decree.-Under Clayton Act, section 5, providing that a final judgment or decree in any criminal prosecution or suit in equity under the antitrust laws shall be prima facie evidence against the defendant in any suit or proceeding by any other party, where the object of a former suit, in which it was held that defendants were engaged in an illegal conspiracy, combination, and monopoly, etc., is not stated, nor the nature of the decree entered, the court will reach its own conclusion as to defendant's violation of the statute. Ramsay Co. v. Associated Bill Posters, 271 F. 143. 176 9. In Determining Effect of Transaction, Its Tendency to Create a Monopoly Must Be Considered.-Under Clayton Act, section 7, relative to the purchase by a corporation engaged in commerce of stock in another corporation so engaged, where, by agreement between the C. Company and the A. Company, a third corporation was organized to take over part of the business of the C. Company, and the A. Company purchased stock therein, though it was not the corporation engaged in interstate commerce in which stock was acquired, the effect of the transaction with reference to its tendency to create a monopoly, as well as its tendency to lessen competition, must be considered. Aluminum Co. of America v. Federal Trade Commission, 284 F. 405 769 10. Section 6 Does Not Authorize any Activity Otherwise Unlawful.-Section 6 of the Clayton Act, in declaring that nothing in the antitrust laws shall be construed to forbid the existence and operation of labor organizations or to forbid their members from lawfully carrying out the legitimate objects thereof, and that such organizations or their members shall not be construed to be illegal combinations or conspiracies in restraint of trade, assumes that the normal objects of such organizations are legitimate, but contains nothing to exempt them or their members from accountability when they depart from objects that are normal and legitimate and engage in an actual combination or conspiracy in restraint of trade. It does not authorize any activity otherwise unlawful, or enable a normally lawful organization to cloak such an illegal combination or conspiracy. Duplex Printing Press Co. v. Deering, 254 U. S. 469. 134 11. Section 12 of, Does Not Affect General Jurisdiction of District Courts. Like section 51, Judicial Code, the special provision as to venue made by section 12 of the Clayton Act, re |