The evening times. [volume] (Grand Forks, N.D.) 1906-1914, 1909-04-17
of error the case was brought to the
United States supreme court, which
limited Its review to the appeal to
federal questions involved.
Mandate Sfaved n Dave

oIucF dLtdCKeO tn6 right or the state
OF Texas to appoint the receiver, and
insisted upon the retention of the fed
eral receiver. Chester B. Dorchester
In the previous decision the United
states supreme court held that the
state courts have the right to con-
strue their own statutes and their
own judgments in such matters.
This has been a hard-fought case,
and the best legal talent that could
be secured was retained by the oil
company. 1t now forfeits Its right to
operate In the state of Texas, but the
decision does not affect its interstate
commerce. "
Former Senator John c. Spooner
was the leading counsel for the Wat
ers-Pierce Oil company.
On April 2 the Waters-Pierce COM
pany filed, in the supreme court of the
United States, petition for a rehear-
Ing of the case of the Waters-Pierce
company. plaintiff in error, VS.. state
OF Texas, defendant in error.
Legal History Of the Case.
The legal history of the case is
briefly as follows: AS a result of pro-
secution by the state of Texas, the
defendant Waters-Pierce company was
convicted of violating the antitrust
laws of Texas and punished by fine
OF $1,549,500. Upon appeal to the
court Of civil appeals the Judgment of
the lower court was affirmed; from
the decision OF that court the company
appealed to the supreme court of the
United States. which court sustained
the decision of the Texas court.
The petition for a rehearing prays
for rehearing and a reversal of the
decision, and in support thereof sets
forth and argues elaborately the three
following propositions:
l. The act of May, 1899, as con-
strued and applied by the Texas courts
IN the submission of paragraph eight
OF the judges charge to the jury, de-
prived the defendant of its property
without due process of law.
2. Since the assessment of penal
ties by the jury under the act of 1899
was In the discretion of the jury, and
was for the entire sum of $1,549 500,
upon the two assumed issues submit
TED In paragraphs seven and eight Of
the charge, II the issue submitted in
paragraph eight was entirely unsup-
ported by any evidence, or charged
no offense, or no offense within the
competency Of the state of Texas to
punish; or was not responsive to any
issue made by the pleadings, the judg-
ment based upon the findings of these
issues is to that extent void, as depriv-
Ing the defendant of its property with
out due process of law.
Penalties Alleged Excessive,
3. The penalties assessed by the
jury under paragraph seven and eight
were so excessive as to deprive the
defendant of its property without due
process Of law.
To sustain these propositions for a
rehearing the principal reasons Offer
ed are as follows: 1t the words COM
Dlnat1on or union of it's capital with
the capital Of the Standard Oil COM
pany of New Jersey" as there employ
ed, refer to capital stock, they can un-
der the evidence only refer to the
acquisition and holding of q majority
of the defendants stock by the Stand
ard Oil company of New Jersey.
The holding by the Standard Oil
company of New Jersey of majority
of the capital stock of the defendant,
dld not render the defendant liable
to penalties under the act of 1899, and
hence the Judgment to that extent is
void of its property without due pro-
cess of law.
If that act attempted to make such
holding penal offense, the state of
Iexas had no jurisdiction to enforce
penalties therefore, because the Of
tense. If committed at all, was not
committed by citizens of Texas, or
within its territorial Jurisdiction, and
hence the judgment to that extent is
void, as depriving the defendant of its
property without due process OF law.
The word capital" as used in this
charge can not be interpreted as
meaning property or corporate as
sets. for II 1t were. the court would
have been without Jurisdiction to sub
NIT the issue to the jury. for these
reasons: l. No such issue was made
by the pleading. There was no evil
dence whatever to sustain it. Hence
Judgment based on such finding
would be void as depriving the defend
ant CT Its property without due pro-
cess OF law.
All of these propositions. it was
contended were by the record before
the supreme court for consideration.
To sustain the second cause set
forth for rehearing defendants in
woke the rule that where two or more
distinct causes of action are found by
the jury in favor of a plaintiff and an
entire sum is awarded as damages,
the verdict can not be sustained If
either of the causes OF action was
improperly submitted to the jury.
In support of the proposition that
the penalty imposed was excessive, the
fact is adduced that the record shows
the fines imposed are greatly in ex-
cess of the total assets Of the defend
ants in Texas.
The most important question raised
by this petition is whether a con,bina-
ton in restraint of trade inferable
alone from the fact that a majority of
the business in Texas Is held by an
other foreign corporation was intend
ed to be prohibited by the act of 1899?