New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1904-03-24
TRUSTS HELD LIABLE.
Mast Pay Damages When They
Injure Individuals.
TrRoM TIE TRIBUNE zrrrrAu.l

Washington. March 23-one of the sections
of the Sherman Antitrust law hitherto regard
cd by the legal fraternity as a dead letter.
became very much alive on the recent decision
OF the United States Supreme Court In the
case OF W. w Montague & Co. a corporation.
against Edward S. Lowry. This fact has es-
capped the attention it's Importance warrants.
Section Of the act reads:
Any person who shall be injured in his bust
ness or property by any other person OF corpora
ton by reason OF anything forbidden or declared
TO be unlawful by this act may sue therefor in
any Circuit Court of the United States. in the
district in which the defendant resides or is
found. without respect to the amount In con-
troversy, and shall recover threefold the dam
ages by him sustained and the costs OF the suit.
including reasonable attorneys fee.
Under this provision any individual whose
business has been injured by the operations OF
a trust may recover damages for such injuries.
and the corporation inhicting them. should it
continue 20 operate in the same manner. would
be liable 70 criminal prosecution In the Mon
tasue case abundant proof was presented. and
the Supreme Court upheld the decision OF the
Circuit Court. which granted damages.
The evidence showed that Montague a. Co. for
many years before the beginning OF the action
had been oopartners. doing business in San
Francisco. dealing in tiles. mantels and CRATES
and that the Tile. Mantel and Crate Association
OF California, composed OF wholesale dealers In
these articles IN California and other States was
organized and sold its products to various deal
ers in California There were no manufacturers
OF tile in that State. making necessary the pur-
chase Of tiles from other States. In this way
the manufacturers and dealers were engaged in
the prosecution Of business which, with ref
erence 10 the sale OF tiles. amounted TO COM
rnerce between States. Under these circun-
stances the dealers in tiles living in San Fran
cisco or within radius Of two hundred miles,
together with the Eastern manufacturers OF
tiles, formed the association Its object was TO
unite all acceptable dealers in San Francisco
and vicinity and all American manufacturers or
tiles.
Montague & Co had established q profitable
business and were competing with Edward 5
Lowry and others prior TO the formation OF this
association. Before that tine they had been
accustomed 20 purchase all their tile from man
ufaoturers in the Eastern States. They never
applied 10 the association for membership. nor
were they asked TO Join IT, The proof shows &C
cooding 10 the decision of the United states Su-
prenle Court that BY reason Of the formation OF
this association the plaintiffs were injured In
their business because they were unable TO pro-
cure tile from the manufacturers at any price
or from the dealers I'm San Francisco at less
than the associations price which was prohib-
tive In view OF these facts a verdict OF $500
IN favor Of Montague a. Co was rendered. and,
in accordance with the provisions Of section
OF the act judgment for treble that sum. to-
gether with what the trial court decided 10 be a
reasonable attorneys fee. was given