Index-Digest 11. Of Bill Posters, to Destroy Competition in Bill Posting, Unlawful.-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 12. In Restraint of Trade in Copper, Not Shown.-The evidence fails to show that defendants constituted in 1911, when this suit was begun, such a combination in monopoly or restraint of interstate or foreign trade in copper, within the terms of Sherman Act, as would justify granting an injunction to the plaintiff under section 16 of the Clayton Act. Geddes v. Anaconda Copper Mining Co., 254 U. S. 595. 158 13. Jurisdiction Retained by Decree, Continues until Combination Dissolved. The jurisdiction retained by a decree ordering the dissolution of an alleged combination and monopoly, to make such further orders and decrees as might be necessary, held to continue until the combination and monopoly was completely dissolved, at least to the extent of authorizing an order requiring the sale of stocks and bonds in other companies owned by one of the defendants. U. S. v. L. S. & M. S. Ry. Co., 281 F. 1011. 14. Of Railroad and Coal Companies, Dissolved. The combination between the Reading Company, the Philadelphia & Reading Railway Company, the Philadelphia & Reading Coal & Iron Company and the Central Railroad Company of New Jersey violates the Sherman Antitrust Act, and must be so dissolved as to give to each of them a position in all respects independent and free from stock or other control of any of the others. U. S. v. Reading Company, 253 U. S. 60. 31 15. Same-Violates Commodities Clause, and Dissolved. The combination between the Philadelphia & Reading Railway Conpany and the Philadelphia & Reading Coal & Iron Company through the Reading Company must also be dissolved, because the transportation thereunder by the Railway of the coal produced by the Coal Company, violates the commodities clause of the act of June 29, 1906. Ib. 34 16. Same-When Ownership, by Railroad Company, of Stock in Coal Company, Violates Commodities Clause.-Applying this rule, held, that the relation between the Central Railroad Company of New Jersey and the Lehigh & Wilkes-Barre Coal Company, with the former owning over eleven-twelfths of the capital stock of the latter and using the latter as 583 Index-Digest the coal mining department of its organization, violates the commodities clause, and for that reason must be dissolved. Ib. 34 17. Plan of Dissolution Decreed by District Court, Approved in Part, and Disapproved in Part.-A plan decreed by the District Court (summarized in the opinion, post, 166,) for dissolving the combination adjudged unlawful in United States v. Reading Co., 253 U. S. 26, approved, in so far as it provides: for merging the Philadelphia & Reading Railway Company in the Reading Company, shorn of corporate capacity to do other than a railroad business; for separating the Central Railroad Company of New Jersey from the Reading Company by sale or disposition of the shares of the former held by the latter (p. 175); for separating the Lehigh & Wilkes-Barre Coal Company by sale of its stock held by the Central Railroad Company of New Jersey (p. 175); and for separating the Reading Company from the Philadelphia & Reading Coal & Iron Company by transfer of all the stock of the latter (held by the former) to a new coal company, to be organized by trustees of the court, the stock of which shall be issued under conditions assuring that those who acquire it shall not be interested in the Reading Company; but disapproved, in so far as it leaves the capital stock and properties of the Philadelphia & Reading Coal & Iron Company subject to the lien of an outstanding geaeral mortgage covering also much of the property of the Reading Railway Company, payment of which, as between these two, is assumed by the Reading Company, and in so far as it provides that the Philadelphia & Reading Coal & Iron Company shall give a new mortgage on all its property to secure bonds to be delivered by it to the Reading Company in the adjustment of their financial relations. Continental Ins. Co. v. U. S., 259 U. S., 170. 18. Acquiring, by Southern Pacific, through Stock Ownership, Control of Central Pacific, Unlawful under Sherman Act.-Inasmuch as the Central Pacific Railway system with its eastern connections, and the Southern Pacific Railway system, are normally competitors for railway traffic moving between California and the Atlantic seaboard and intermediate places, the acquisition in 1899 by the Southern Pacific Company owning the Southern Pacific system, of a controlling part of the stock of the Central Pacific Railway Company, owner of the Central Pacific lines, constituted a combination made unlawful by the Sherman Act. U. S. v. Southern Pacific Co., 259 U. S. 229 626 19. Same-Acquiring by One Railroad, through Stock Ownership, of Control of Competing Railroad, Unlawful under Sherman Act.-A combination whereby one railroad system, through 601 Index-Digest stock purchases, acquires control of the whole or a vital part of another, with the effect of materially reducing free and normal competition in interstate trade between the two, violates the Sherman Act. U. S. v. Southern Pacific Co., 259 U. S. 229. 626 20. Same-Does Not Depend upon Existence of Competition When Formed. The principle of United States v. Union Pacific R. R. Co., 226 U. S. 61, and of the previous cases upon which it rested, does not depend upon the existence of competition when the combination is formed. Ib. 627 21. Same-Prior Community of Stock Ownership and Control Did Not Justify. The history of the two railroad systems here involved, considered and held not to justify the stock purchase in question upon the theory that there was a prior practical consolidation of them, antedating the Sherman Act, through their physical relations and community of stock ownership and control. Ib. 629 22. Same-Fact that It was Entered into Prior to Passage of Sherman Act, Does Not Exempt from Its Operation.-The fact that a combination or contract in restraint or monopoly of interstate trade was entered into before the date of the Sherman Act does not exempt it from the operation of that statute Ib. 631 COMMODITIES CLAUSE. 1. When Combination of Railroad and Coal Companies Violates.The combination between the Philadelphia & Reading Railway Company and the Philadelphia & Reading Coal & Iron Company through the Reading Company must also be dissolved, because the transportation thereunder by the Railway of the coal produced by the Coal Company, violates the commodities clause of the act of June 29, 1906. U. S. v. Reading Company, 253 U. S. 63. 34 2. Same-When Ownership of Stock by Railroad, in Coal Company, Violates.-The relation between the Central Railroad Company of New Jersey and the Lehigh & Wilkes-Barre Coal Company, with the former owning over eleven-twelfths of the capital stock of the latter and using the latter as the coal mining department of its organization, violates the commodities clause, and for that reason must be dissolved. Ib. 34 3. Same-When Stock of Coal Company Is Owned by Railroad Company, for Purpose of Making It Mere Agent of Latter, Violates Commodities Clause.-While the ownership by a railroad company of shares of the capital stock of a mining company does not necessarily create an identity of corporate interest between the two such as to render it unlawful under the commodities clause for the railroad company to transport Index-Digest in interstate commerce the products of such mining company, yet where such ownership of stock is resorted to, not for the purpose of participating in the affairs of the corporation in which it is held in a manner normal and usual with stockholders, but for the purpose of making it a mere agent, or instrumentality or department of another company, the courts will look through the forms to the realities of the relation between the companies as if the corporate agency did not exist and will deal with them as the justice of the case may require. Ib. 34 4. Ownership by Railroad of Stock of Sales Company Formed to Buy and Ship Coal on Line of Railroad, a Mere Device to Evade, and Void.-Where a railroad company organized a sales company, all the stock of which was purchased by the stockholders of the railroad company, which sales company entered into an agreement with a coal company, the stock of which was owned by the railroad company, to buy all coal mined by the coal company and to lease all of its facilities, and the sales company was inhibited from buying any coal except from the coal company and from selling any not so produced, such sales company was neither an independent buyer nor a free agent, and the contract being a mere device to evade the commodities clause of the interstate commerce act, and obnoxious to the antitrust act, was void. U. S. v. Lehigh Valley R. R. Co., 254 U. S. 267. COMMON KNOWLEDGE. 107 1. Billboard Advertising is Matter of.-It is a matter of common knowledge that for some years manufacturers, theatrical companies, and others have been in the habit of advertising their wares and attractions by means of posters on billboards throughout the country. Ramsay Co. v. Associated Bill Posters, 271 F. 142. COMPETITION. 173 1. Exists between Corporations in Same Business, though There Is a "Sellers' Market."-Within Clayton Act, section 7, relative to the purchase by a corporation of stock in another corporation having the effect of substantially lessening competition, competition exists between corporations selling the same class of goods, though there is a "sellers' market," or condition of affairs under which sellers do not have to compete for trade, but where the trade competes for the sellers' products. Aluminum Co. of America v. Federal Trade Commission, 284 F. 406. 770 2. Same-Held Lessened, When Stock of Only Competitor in Sheet Aluminum Eliminated, etc.-Competition was substantially lessened, within Clayton Act, section 7, by a stock acquisition Index-Digest which eliminated from the sheet aluminum trade a company's only competitor in the manufacture and sale of wide sheets, and one of its only two competitors in the manufac ture of sheets of any width. Ib. 770 3. Same-Lessening of, with Corporation Whose Stock Not Acquired, Held to Have Evidential Bearing.—Where, by agreement between the A. Company and the C. Company, a third company, in which the A. Company acquired stock, was organized to take over part of the C. Company's business, though the stock acquired was not that of the C. Company, the lessening of competition with the C. Company had an evidential bearing on the question whether the transaction tended to create a monopoly, within Clayton Act, section 7. Ib. COMPLAINT. 771 1. Against Billposters, Did Not Allege Unlawful Combination.-The complaint in an action by solicitors of advertising against an association of billposters, alleging that the rules of the association prohibited members from accepting advertising for posting on billboards from solicitors other than those licensed by the association, and regulated prices for billposting, and prohibited licensed solicitors from employing billposters not members of the association, did not allege a combination which would be unlawful at common law. Ramsay Co. v. Associated Bill Posters, 271 F. 143. 176 2. Against Billposters, for Damages, Because of Restraint, Held Insufficient.-A complaint for damages sustained by a billposter because of restraints on interstate commerce by the billposter's association, which generally alleged that billposters at times purchased directly from the lithographers, does not thereby allege that plaintiff was accustomed to make such purchases, or that the defendants interfered with such business on his part, and therefore does not show injury by restraint on shipment of lithographs in interstate commerce. Sullivan v. Associated Bill Posters, 272 F. 328. 256 3. Against Executors of a Will, Not Charging Them Individually with Acts Complained of, Insufficient. In an action against individuals, who were executors under a will, where the complaint does not allege that the will was ever admitted to probate, nor charge them individually with the acts complained of does not state a cause of action against them, either in their representative capacity or individually. Sullivan v. Associated Bill Posters, 272 F. 329. 258 4. For Forcing Minority Stockholders to Sell, States No Cause of Action under Sherman Law.-A complaint against a billposter's association and its members, which alleged that certain of the members who controlled a billposting corporation forced plaintiff to sell his minority stock therein, but |