Document: 347 U.S. 514 74 S.Ct. 703 98 L.Ed. 903 UNITED STATESv.BORDEN CO. et al. No. 464. Argued April 27, 1954. Decided May 17, Mr. Asst. Atty. Gen. Barnes, for appellant. Stuart S. Ball, Chicago, Ill., appellees Borden Co. Leo F. Tierney, appellee Beloit Dairy Justice CLARK delivered the opinion of Court. 1 The United States instituted this civil proceeding against ten Chicago dairies,1 charging conspiracy to restrain and monopolize sale fluid milk wholesale customers others in area, violation Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C.A. §§ 1—7, note, price discrimination, Clayton § 12 seq. Prior trial a consent decree was entered five smaller defendant companies, enjoining continuation conduct charged complaint. At close Government's case remaining defendants,2 District Court dismissed complaint its entirety. It held that, as alleged violations 2 evidence failed establish existence or combination; though there proof discrimination violative 2(a) Act by four defendants,3 prior private antitrust action brought competitor dairy company enjoined question made it 'useless' award Government an injunction. then appealed directly under U.S.C. 29, we noted probable jurisdiction, 346 914, 276. Three questions presented on appeal deal with rulings district judge that certain inadmissible.4 does not challenge court's conclusion record shown, but insists error these precluded establishment conspiracy. After hearing argument considering much is before us, including offers proof, are even assuming each challenged rulings, appear admission would have been sufficient change had established Act; hence cannot be said affected substantial rights parties within meaning 28 2111, 2111.5 Since basis affirm judgment dismissal allegations, unnecessary discuss propriety impropriety several rulings. 3 fourth challenges Court's refusal grant injunctive relief defendants.6 found tended prove companies sold at prices which discriminate between purchasers like grade quality. This, he said, give defendants burden establishing discriminations fall statutory exceptions, were suit 1952 another same court,7 they already from performing all acts specified prayer relief. In judge, 4 'A court instance litigant binding upon government; decree, any without evidence, after protracted trial. I conclude, therefore, now effectively set forth government's relief, insofar concerned. 5 'As equity, will perform useless task. described shown are, most part, old violations. And court, Dean assures, completely can assure, no new violations.' (111 F.Supp. 581.) 6 Accordingly part Act. Thus appears refused injunction solely because course action. We think constituted abuse discretion. 7 Section 25, charges attorneys, supervision Attorney General, duty instituting equity proceedings prevent laws, discrimination. Under 16 26, plaintiff may obtain such only showing 'threatened loss damage'; must sort personal plaintiff, Beegle v. Thomson, Cir., 1943, 138 F.2d 875, 881. private-injunction action, treble-damage supplements enforcement laws; General attorneys who primarily Congress protecting public interest laws. seeks remedies behalf general public; his remedy available pursuant policy determined Congress, expected exercise when served. These actions designed cumulative, mutually exclusive. Rep. 698, 63d Cong., 2d Sess. 42; cf. Federal Trade Commission Cement Institute, 1948, 333 683, 694—695, 68 793, 800, 92 1009. '* * (T)he scheme statute sharply distinguish suits, either criminal civil, suits treble damages. Different considerations govern these. They proceed simultaneously disregard other.' Bendix Home Appliances, D.C.S.D.N.Y.1949, 10 F.R.D. 73, 77. short, right seek protect exist regard decree. 8 To hold renders otherwise entitled ignore prime object decrees secured continuing protection public, means contempt proceedings, recurrence Should violated, bring enforce compliance; might succeed intervening find advantage refrain seeking violated decree; example, where defendant's operated plaintiff's competitors. Or agree modification again looking own interest. events likely adequately protected mere also clear did intend efforts should supersede duties Department policing industry. Yet effect decision below place major industry task beyond ability, consistently so inclined. 9 confers absolute past laws defendants. As W. T. Grant Co., 1953, 345 629, 633, 73 894, 898, 97 1303: moving party satisfy needed. necessary determination exists some cognizable danger recurrent violation, something more than possibility serves keep alive. chancellor's based circumstances; discretion necessarily broad strong reverse it.' 11 contends has 'an independent whether previously suit.' But say warrants consideration chancellor assessing likelihood recurring illegal activity. view difference respective interests sought vindicated litigant, abused refusing allegations affirmed; remanded further consideration, necessary, accordance opinion. 13 Judgment affirmed part. 14 BLACK JACKSON took case. Company, Bowman Belmont Ridgeview Farms Dairy, Capitol American Precessing Sales Hunding Meadowmoor Dairies Western Company. Borden, Bowman, Belmont, Beloit. Ridgeview. allow use impeachment hostile witness deposition taken case; introduce tape recordings testimony conversation deceased agent one 'On writ certiorari case, shall examination errors defects do affect parties.' Fed.Rules Civ.Proc., rule 61, U.S.C.A.: 'Harmless Error. No exclusion defect ruling order anything done omitted ground granting setting aside verdict vacating, modifying disturbing order, unless take inconsistent justice. every stage See note 3, supra. correctness claim Beloit, fifth defendant, us. Milk Processing & U.S.D.C.N.D.Ill.E.D., 49 C 1159, Dec. 1952.

Category: 7