The Bridgeport evening farmer. [volume] (Bridgeport, Conn.) 1866-1917, 1911-04-15
Big VICTORY
FOR RADEL
OYSTER co
tContiued from Page -

SedlSnlpt oyster system, versus
the Andrew Radel Oyster Com
pany, regarding temporary injunc-
ton.
1.-THE contracts WHICH the COM
plainant has adopted to carry out
its scheme of marketing at a dis
tant inland, oysters opened on the
coast, have been EXAMINED with as
much care as seems fitting and nee
essary when passing upon such a
motion as this.
''My present impression is that
the scheme is absolutely dependent
for its success upon the strict en-
forcement Of the contracts and
that by their use the complainant
is enabled to cut out competition
and bring into it's own hands a
considerable portion, at least, of
the open oyster trade between the
coast and the interior.
''No other reasonable view of the
matter occurs to me, now that the
Pure Food law has become an OPP
erative factor in such trade. Com
plainant's reliance upon the patent
medicine cases must have been
shaken somewhat by the decision
of the Supreme court in the case
against John D. Park & Sons, de-
liVered since the arguments on this
motion.
with my present light, I must,
therefore, believe the contracts in
question to be against public poll
cy, illegal and void.
"Since the complainant's story of
wrong is almost entirely based up
on the rights which it claims un-
der the contracts, the prop seems
to have fallen out from under it.
aside from the contracts. do
not think the aff1davits make out
a case certain enough to warrant
immediate relief.
with apologies to the defen-
dant for not knowing as much at
the beginning as I know now, the
motion for a temporary injunction
is denied
Before the United States district
court last December the Sealshipt Co.
trust brought an application for the
granting of temporary injunction
restraining the Andrew Radel Oyster
company of Bridgeport from doing
business with any Of the customers OF
the Sealshipt Company Or soliciting
the trade Of any of these customers,
or in any way attempting to induce
them to leave the Sealshipt Company.
In support of the claim for this in
junction the Sealshipt Company pre-
scented a contract signed by Andrew
Radel when a member of the Seal
shipt system, by which he agreed that
in the event of his ever leaving the
sealshipt system, he forfeited all
rights to deal with the Sealshipt Co.'S
customers, Or to solicit the trade of
any of these customers Or to attempt
to induce any of them to leave the
Sealshipt combination.
Judge Plat Immediately granted a
restraining order, which has been in
effect since that time. and the Andrew
ID1 n 10
tually tiled up from doing business,
Or even advertising among the Seal
shipt company's immense list Of GUS
toners, throughout the entire United
States.
On the other hand, since the grant
ing Of this restraining order, the Seal
shipt company has been obliged to
furnish a bond of $4,000 to cover any
damages that might arise to the Ra-
del Oyster company through the OPP
GRAFTON of the restraining order, should
the court subsequently, find that a
restraining order or injunction is not
justified. The bond originally was
$4,000 and was increased to $50, 900
on the motion of Senator Stiles Judson
counsel for the Radel Oyster com-
pany 1t is probable that Mr.. Ra-
del will Immediately bring suit to re-
cover heavy damages from this $50
600 bond, to recompense him for the
loss of trade sustained during the four
months in which the restraining order
has been in force.
Senator Stiles Judson for the Ra-
del Oyster company in presenting the
defence for that concern against the
restraining order based his argument
on the allegation that the Sealshipt
company is virtually combination
in restraint of trade; that the contract
held with Mr.. Radel is an illegal con-
oh int vs.,
whole system of contracts with oyster
growers wholesalers and retailers, are
illegal; that Mr.. Radel in leaving the
Sealshipt company left an illegal COM
bination and that none of this COM
pany's Illegal contracts is in anyway
binding upon the Radel oyster Co.
This point, has been strongly sus-
tanned by Judge Plat in his deci-
sion and the restraining order is
therefore revoked. Judge Platt's
statement that the whole Sealshipt
system depends upon it's contracts.
and that these contracts are contrary
to public policy, illegal and void is a
stunning blow to the Sealshipt sys-
tenn.
In the hearing it was brought out
that the Sealshipt company originally
started business as manufacturers of
a certain sanitary conveyance for
opening oysters. This contrivance is
known as "SealShlptOr and is an
elaborate affair including a case with
in a case porcelain lined, and air
tight the inner case carrying oyster
meats and the outer case water and
ice, which never comes in contact with
the oysters.
The advantage of this continuance
for shipping oysters long distances led
the dealers to take to it, and the
Sealshipt company went into the bust
ness of carrying oysters from the coast
to the interior and built up an i'm
mense commerce in the leasing of it's
"sealshiptors' and the carrying of
oysters.
This development and growth was
easy prior to the passage of the Pure
Food acts and the Sealshipt company
heavily advertised the advantages of
it's continuance and found it easy to
win trade on the ground of cleanliness
and the sanitary advantages of the
sealshiptors, so called.
The SealShipt company was then in
an advantageous position being prac-
tically the sole manufacturer of this
kind Of shipping case for oysters and
enjoyed a natural monopoly and a
rapid growth But the passage Of the
Pure Food act, which requires that
all oysters must be shipped in a pack
age on some plan similar to seal
shiptor'' forced all the other oyster
firms into direct competition with the
Sealshipt Company on it's own grounds
and the big corporation ceased to be
the only ''hygenic'' shipper of oysters.
Thus being suddenly deprived of this