New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1909-02-02
HARD BLOW AT TRUSTS
CANNOT USE COURTS TO
COLLECT DEBTS.
United States Supreme Court, . to l.,
Decides against Continental
WaU Paper Com pany.

Washington. Feb 1.-The case Of the Cont
mental Wall Paper Company agt Lewis Voight
& Sons. of Cincinnati. was decided to-day by the
Supreme Court Of the United States in favor
of the Weights The suit was brought by the
company debt OF $4,000. the payment OF
which was resisted on the ground that the paper
company is trust In effect the decision holds
that an admitted trust organized contrary 10
the Sherman law, cannot the court 10 col
lect debts. It was represented that Weight had
bought over 100000 worth of paper. on which
he had paid 80 Per cent more than he would
have had to pay IL yhere had been competition
II also asserted that the Continental COM
pany had been organized TO conduct the bust
OF the various wall paper factories Of the
United States and that the -[oishts. as jobbers
in it's products had been compelled to sign
strict agreement on the threa. that if they did
not do SO TO paper would be sold to them, and
that il would be made impossible for them To
continue in business. In demurrer the com
pany admitted that 1t trust and still con-
tended that it could properly collect debts due
1t. On this showing the companys petition was
dismissed by the trial court and its decision was
affirmed by the United States Court of Appeals
for the sixth Circuit To-day's opinion was by
Justice Harlan and sustained the decision Of
the lower courts.
n
Justice Harlan's opinion was based on the
third defence of the Weights that the company
IS trust 1t began with the proposition that
the Continental company is within the prohibit
tons Of the Sherman act, which. he said. IL
clear from the facts set forth in its defence. He
then went on to show that this corporation Is
the representative of a combination which would
have the effect NOT only of restraining but OF
monopolizing the sale and manufacture or paper.
THE Continental Wall Paper Company" he
said seeks. in legal effect. the aid of the court
to enforce a contract for the sale and purchase
Of goods which. it is admitted by the demurrer
was in fact and was intended by the parties 10
be based upon agreements that we're and are
essential parts Of an Illegal scheme" He added:
The present suit IA not based upon implied
contract of the defendant company to pay Tor
goods that IL purchased. but. in fact. is based
upon the agreements TO which both the plainun
and the defendant parties. pursuant 10
which the accounts sued on were made out, ana
which had for their object and which it is ad-
mitted had the effect to accomplish the illegal
ends for which the Continental wall Paper
Company was organized II Judgment be given
for the plaintiff the result will be 10 give the
aid of the court in making enectlFe Ine iileSdi
agreements that constituted the forbidden COM
bination. The question is whether the
plaintiff company car have Judgment Tor the
amount of an aCcoI.nt which il is admitted by
demurrer, was made up with the know ledge OF
both seller and buyer, with direct reference TO
which an Illegal Communication. represented by
the seller, was organized
Saying that Judgment in favor of the COM
pany would give effect to agreements constitut-
ing the Illegal combination. Justice Harlan said;
We hold that such a Judgment cannot be
granted without departing from the statutory
rule long established in the Jurisprudence OF
both this country and England, that court VIII
not lend its aid in any way TO enforce or to
realize the fruits of agreement which ap-
pears to he tainted with iIlegality. although the
to shield defendant who has got something for
which as between man and man he ought per
haps TO pay but for which he is unwilling TO
pay.
The opinion closed follows:
Upon the whole case snd without further Cita-
ton of authority. adjudge upon the admitted
facts that the combination represented by the
plaintiff in this case was Illegal under the anti
trust act OF 1890 is to be taken as one intended
and which would have the effect directly to re
strain and moEopolize trade among the several
states and with foreign states; and that the
plaintiff cannot have Judgment for the amount
of the account sued on, because such a judg-
nent would in effect be in aid Of the execution
OF agreements constituting that illegal combi-
nation. We consequently hold that the Circuit
Court Of Appeals properly sustained the third
defence in the case and rightly dismissed the
suit.
FOUR JUSTICES DISSENT
The case was decided against the company by
a majority of one. Justice Holmes delivered a
dissenting opinion, in which Justices Brewer,
White and Peckham concurred. Justice Holmes
undertook 20 show that the iIlegality OF the
general contract of the Voights with the paper
company taken by itself did not make any
specific sale Illegal and he contended that It
does not matter to the Legality of the sales
whether previous step was legal or not. r.
he said knowledge that the plaintiff was at
tempting 10 monopOlize and that it sold prices
fixed in aid of the intent would not exOnerate
the, defendant when it yielded to It's necessities
and bought the same knowledge would have
no greater effect II the same necessities led 1t
to agree beforehand to do what it did
on another point Justice Holmes said that |
whenever a party knows that he Is buying |
from an Illegal trust and still more when he |
l,uvs at a price. that he thinks unreasonable |
but is compelled to pay in order TO get the goods
he needs he knows that he is doing act in !
furtheranee of the unlawful purpose of the |
trust which always is to. get the most it can |
for it's wares But" he added, that knowledge |
makes no difference because the policy of not |
rurthering the purposes of the trust is less i'm
portant than the policy of preventing people /
from getting other peoples property for moth /
ing when they purport 10 be buying it. And II |
Of the purchaser that he is furthering
the purpose of the trust makes no difference. il |
makes no difference whether he is glad sorry /
for the result man does not make conduct |
otherwise lawful unlawful simply by yearnlng |
hat it should b So
HOUSE PASSES ANTI-oPTUM BILL
l.. W.. po,s;o,e 81 ro5o-,f 4