New-York tribune., 1908-12-17
SUGARRULING CHANGED
DECISION IN ACTION FOR
$50. 900 900 RETERSED.
Penn. Refining Com pany Has Cause
against american Refining Co.,
Court Of ADDeaIS Holds.

The United States Circuit Court Of Appeals
in an opinion written by Judge Noyas, reversed
Yesterday the decision Of the Circuit Court dis
missing the complaint Of the Pennsy .vania
Sugar Refining Company against the American
Sugar Refining Company. in which damages OF
S30pO0oUO are asked. Judge Noyes holds that
the lower court was wrong in ruling that in
terstate commerce was not involved and that
the suit was wrongly brought under the sher-
man law.
The allegation was that the American Sugar
Refining Company had induced Adolph Segal'
Of Philadelphia who owned a controlling inter-
es-. in an indirect way, in the Pennsy- -vaDla
company, 70 accept q considerable loan and
that. when he had accepted this loan and as
signed his interest in the Pennsylvania com
ranv. which carried with it a voting power, the
American Sugar Refining Company had had
new directors elected for the Pennsy .vania
COMPANY and had through them, compelled the
closing Of its new sugar refinery.
This refinery is IN Shakamaxon street, Phil
adeIphia and the papers in the suit declare
that II has been kept idle as a result Of the al
legged conspiracy since December, 1903 The
pIanr has a capacity OF Ipur thousand barrels a
dav and the damage at the time of the bring
inc Of the suit was set at $1OOO0O00 Dam
agas n tie amount Of three times this sum are
asked
nudge Holt dismissed the complaint last
Anrr on the ground that the Pennsylvania
COMPANY had shown no cause for action under
the Sherman law. II was also alleged by the
defendant that the plaintiff was not in busi-
1ses at the time the suit was brought. and was
therefore not in a position TO bring such &C
ton Judge Noyes holds that the plaintiff
should have the opportunity TO prove that it
couId have continued in business had il not
beer. restrained by the alleged conspiracy.
N-o,-au in OuiUi0u. saws that while
an agreement or combination for the elinina-
,tor Of competition may not operate in restraint
cf trade from the economic point Of view. It
must necessarily be in restraint Of trade from
the legal point Of view, as the law regards com
,,a+irfor as the life Of trade. The point at is
e,,a K whether or not the agreement or contract
onero+es in restraint Of state or interstate
trade He holds that in this case such restraint
OF Interstate trade may be proved
Judge Holts opinion was based on the case
Of The United States agt E Q knight &
Co. which bears, says Judge Noyes. a strong
superficial resemblance to the present case
J,dge Moves says. however. that in the older
case The restraint was Of manufacture. relat-
ing only Indirectly to interstate trade, while in
rhe present case there is direct effect on inter
state commerce
Continuing the opinion, Judge Noyes SAYS:
y must be clearly borne in mind that the de-
ferdants in this case are not charged simply
with preventing the plaintiff from engaging in
q manufacturing business. II they were the
Knight decision would undoubtedly be applica-
rIe Thev are expressly charged also with pre-
venting the plaintiff from engaging IN Interstate
cor7rerce-With preventing the importation OF
raw materials and the expectation of the manu-
featured product In fact the allegations 70 so
far as 20 charge a conspiracy to prevent the in
terstate transportation of materials and prod
Continued on second peg.