Source: https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/293/268.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-25 10:47:50+00:00

Document:
INDIANA FARMER'S GUIDE PUB. CO. v. PRAIRIE FARMER PUB. CO.
[293 U.S. 268, 269] Messrs. Eben Lesh, of Huntington, Ind., and U.S. Lesh, and James E. Lesh, both of Indianapolis, Ind., and Joseph Lesh, of Huntington, Ind., for petitioner.
[293 U.S. 268, 270] Messrs. Maxwell V. Beghtol, of Lincoln, Neb., Thomas E. Murphy, of Chicago, Ill., and Burke G. Slaymaker and Clarence F. Merrell, both of Indianapolis, Ind., for respondents.
Petitioner brought this action against respondents alleging facts upon which it claimed they violated sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Anti- Trust Act (15 USCA 1, 2) and thereby caused injury to its property and business for which it prayed recovery of threefold damages under section 7 of the act (15 USCA 15 note). The respondents answered separately by general denial. At the close of all the evidence they submitted a written motion that the court direct a verdict in their favor. The court granted the motion and entered judgment. The Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed. 70 F.(2d) 3.
Section 1 of the Sherman Act denounces 'every contract, combination in the form of trust or otherwise, or conspiracy, in restraint of trade or commerce among the several States.' 15 U.S.C. 1 (15 USCA 1). Section 2 declares: 'Every person who shall monopolize, or attempt to monopolize, or combine or conspire with any other person or persons, to monopolize any part of the trade or commerce among the several States ... shall be deemed [293 U.S. 268, 272] guilty of a misdemeanor.' 15 U.S.C. 2 (15 USCA 2). Section 7 provides: 'Any person who shall be injured in his business or property by any other person or corporation by reason of anything forbidden or declared to be unlawful by this act, may sue therefor ... and shall recover three fold the damages by him sustained, and the costs of suit, including a reasonable attorney's fee.' 26 Stat. 210 (15 USCA 15 note).
For a number of years, 1928 to 1932 inclusive, next prior to the commencement of this action, the petitioner and each respondent other than the Midwest Farm Paper Unit, Inc., was a publisher of one or more farm papers. Each is a general, and not a vocational, paper; the larger part of its circulation is in the State where printed; it does not circulate in any substantial number throughout the country as a whole and is called a state or sectional paper in order to distinguish it from publications having a wider and what is referred to as a national circulation. Petitioner publishes weekly 'The Indiana Farmer's Guide' at Huntington, Ind. Its circulation is about 160,000, of which over two-thirds is in Indiana and approximately 50,000 in other States. The respondent Prairie Company publishes in Illinois 'The Prairie Farmer' and the 'Indiana Edition' of the same, which has a large circulation in Indiana. The Wallace Company publishes in Iowa 'Wallace's Farmer and Iowa Homestead.' The Wisconsin Company publishes in Wisconsin the 'Wisconsin Agriculturist and Farmer.' The McKelvie Company publishes in Nebraska 'The Nebraska Farmer.' The Webb Company publishes in Minnesota 'The Farmer and Farm, Stock and Home' and the 'Dakota Edition' of the same. Advertising matter carried by each of these publishers includes classified and display or commercial advertisements. The latter only is involved in this case. Each is largely dependent for financial success upon revenue derived from [293 U.S. 268, 273] these advertisements. Most of the advertisers are located in States other than those in which the papers are published. About ninety per cent. of petitioner's advertisements comes from points outside Indiana and is obtained by correspondence, traveling solicitors, and representatives located in different parts of the country. Advertisers, in order to enable petitioner to print their advertisements as desired, send to it from outside Indiana electrotypes which, after being used, are returned to the advertiser or held subject to his order.
Respondents take no issue with the petitioner's assertion of fact. But, impliedly assuming its correctness, they argue that, while petitioner and respondents are engaged in interstate commerce in the circulation of their papers, the subject-matter of the suit is not that business but the making of contracts by respondents for the insertion of advertising matter in their papers and that therefore the case is ruled by Blumenstock Bros. Advertising Agency v. Curtis Pub. Co., 252 U.S. 436, 438 , 40 S.Ct. 385. And they say the trial court did not err in holding that 'there can be no restraint [293 U.S. 268, 275] or monopoly of interstate commerce when the subject matter of the complaint does not relate to interstate commerce at all.' Thus, by a construction of the complaint that is utterly untenable, they support the very basis upon which petitioner maintains the district court rested its decision. Inferentially their contentions go far to show-and in the light of all the circumstances we find-that the trial court's direction of verdict and its judgment rests solely upon the ground that petitioner failed to introduce evidence that its business or that of respondents included interstate commerce.
The business that is here alleged to have been damaged is the publication and circulation of these farm papers. That business includes the obtaining of advertising, the transportation between States of electrotypes sent respectively to petitioner and respondents by their customers to be used in setting up advertisements, and the transportation of substantial quantities of the papers in interstate commerce. Advertising at compensatory rates is an essential element. The opinion in Blumenstock Bros. Advertising Agency v. Curtis Pub. Co., supra, assumed that a publishing business such as that now under consideration would amount to interstate commerce. There is no ground for the contention that the evidence in this case is not sufficient to go to the jury on the question of interstate commerce. International Text-Book Co. v. Pigg, supra, pages 106, 107 of 217 U.S., 30 S.Ct. 481, 27 L.R.A.(N. S.) 493, 18 Ann.Cas. 1103; Pensacola Tel. Co. v. West., etc., Tel. Co., 96 U.S. 1, 9 , 10 S.; Dahnke-Walker Milling Co. v. Bondurant, 257 U.S. 282, 290 , 291 S., 42 S.Ct. 106; Di Santo v. Pennsylvania, 273 U.S. 34, 36 , 47 S.Ct. 267; Eastman Kodak Co. v. Southern Photo Materials Co., 273 U.S. 359, 370 , 374 S., 47 S.Ct. 400; Furst v. Brewster, 282 U.S. 493 . 497, 51 S.Ct. 295. Cf. [293 U.S. 268, 277] N.Y. Life Ins. Co. v. Deer Lodge County, 231 U.S. 495 , 510, et seq., 34 S. Ct. 167.
 [293 U.S. 268, 279] contains no suggestion by respondents or by either court that petitioner's allegations are not sufficient to charge a violation of sections 1 and 2. Its right to recover does not depend upon the proportion that respondents control of the total farm paper advertisements in the entire country, and it was not required to prove that respondents imposed a restraint or attempted monopolization that would affect all commercial advertisements in all farm papers wherever published or circulated. The provisions of sections 1 and 2 have both a geographical and distributive significance and apply to any part of the United States as distinguished from the whole and to any part of the classes of things forming a part of interstate commerce. Standard Oil Co. v. United States, 221 U.S. 1, 61 , 31 S.Ct. 502, 34 L.R.A.(N.S.) 834, Ann.Cas.1912D, 734.
Our decision in Standard Oil Co. v. United States, 283 U.S. 163 , 51 S. Ct. 421, has little if any bearing upon the question whether the facts alleged in the complaint and supported by the evidence in this case reasonably may be held to constitute a violation of section 1 or section 2 (15 USCA 1, 2). That was a suit for injunction, section 4 (15 USCA 4), to prevent an alleged combination from creating a monopoly or restraining interstate commerce by control of the part of gasoline produced by cracking. The district court granted some of the relief sought. The case came here on defendants' appeal. Slight notice of the principal features of the case is sufficient to distinguish it from the one now before us. Three producers, owning patents for cracking by which the yield of gasoline is greatly increased, joined with the owner of similar patents in agreements for the exchange of patent rights and division of royalties which were challenged by the government as a violation of the act, chiefly upon the ground that they enabled the parties to the agreement to maintain existing royalties. Cracked gasoline is not distinguishable from the straight run. They are mixed or sold interchangeably. The output of cracked gasoline was about 26 per cent. of the total. The record did not show [293 U.S. 268, 280] the production of cracked by licensees. It was not shown that by agreeing on royalties defendants could control price or supply. We held that the United States was not entitled to any relief and reversed the decree of the district court.
Appalachian Coals, Inc., v. United States, 288 U.S. 344 , 53 S.Ct. 471, was brought here on appeal from a decree of the district court granting an injunction against a combination of producers of bituminous coal in a suit by the United States under the Sherman Act. It may be taken for present purposes that the defendants' production was 74.4 per cent. of the total in the territory in which they operated. But this was only about 12 per cent. of the production east of the Mississippi. It was shown that relatively little bituminous coal is consumed in the district in which the defendants operate mines. They marketed most of their coal in highly competitive territory. We held, in view of the condition disclosed by the record, that there was no basis for concluding that competition anywhere would be injuriously affected by the cooperative plan adopted by the combination, and reversed the decree.
The Circuit Court of Appeals (70 F.(2d) 3, 5) while recognizing that 'there are essential fact differences which make comparisons of different industries of little value,' rested its judgment upon respondents' arguments based upon these cases. But the abridged statements of issues there involved and decided are sufficient to show that respondents' contention reflected inadequate ascertainment and appreciation of the facts and considerations there held controlling and that these decisions turned upon the government's failure to prove restraint of competition and that they are not in point here. It results therefore that the ground on which the Circuit Court of Appeals rested its judgment cannot be sustained. [293 U.S. 268, 281] Petitioner sought this writ upon the ground that the Circuit Court of Appeals held it bound to prove that respondents effected such a restraint of interstate commerce as would materially affect the farm journal advertising business in the entire country and misapplied our decisions in the Standard Oil Company Case and the Appalachian Coals Case. Respondents had opportunity here to show that, although given on untenable grounds, the judgment below is right and should be affirmed. And, if by the record they could so demonstrate, this court, if satisfied beyond doubt that it could do so without prejudice to petitioner, properly might refrain from reversal. Deery v. Cray, 5 Wall. 795, 807; Vicksburg & Meridian Railr'd v. O'Brien, 119 U.S. 99, 103 , 7 S.Ct. 172; Peck v. Heurich, 167 U.S. 624, 629 , 17 S.Ct. 927. But respondents suggest nothing to justify the direction of verdict and judgment in their favor. Certainly, in the absence of a claim on their part that, conceding the errors exposed by this opinion, the judgment is right, we will not examine the record to discover grounds to sustain it. Cf. Chicago, Milwaukee, etc., R'y v. Tompkins, 176 U.S. 167, 179 , 20 S.Ct. 336; Hammond v. Schappi Bus Line, 275 U.S. 164 , 170 et seq., 48 S.Ct. 66. We intimate no opinion whether, upon the question of restraint or monopoly or upon the question of injury to petitioner or its business, the evidence is sufficient to warrant a verdict in its favor.
[ Footnote * ] Rehearing denied 293 U.S. 633 , 55 S.Ct. 345, 79 L.Ed. --.

References: v. 
 V. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.