Case Name: UNION CASTLE MAIL S. S. CO., Limited, et al. v. THOMSEN et al.
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1911-07-26
Citations: 190 F. 536
Docket Number: No. 189
Parties: UNION CASTLE MAIL S. S. CO., Limited, et al. v. THOMSEN et al.
Judges: Before LACOMBE, COXE, and NOYES, Circuit Judges..
Reporter: Federal Reporter
Volume: 190
Pages: 536–538

Head Matter:
UNION CASTLE MAIL S. S. CO., Limited, et al. v. THOMSEN et al.
(Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
July 26, 1911.)
No. 189.
Appeal and Error (§ 1177 1 — Reversal—Disposition obi Cause.
Wliere counsel in the trial of a cause and the court in its charge to the jury proceeded on an erroneous construction of the statute on which the action was based, an appellate court will not undertake to determine the case on the evidence in the record, hut will remand for a new trial.
[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Appeal and Error, Cent. Dig. §§ 4597-4620; Dec. Dig. § 1177. )
Cose, Circuit Judge, dissenting.
In Error to the Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern District of New York.
Action at law by Hugo Alberto Thomsen and others against the Union Castle Mail Steamship Company, Limited, and others. Judgment for plaintiffs, and defendants bring error.
Reversed.
Writ of error to review a judgment of the Circuit Court, Southern District of New York, in favor of Jthe defendants in error, who were plaintiffs below, in an action for the recovery of treble damages under the federal anti-trust statute. The case was before this court before (166 Fed. 251) upon a writ of error sued out by the plaintiffs because their complaint was dismissed.
J. Parker Kirlin and Thomas Thacher, for plaintiffs in error.
Lorenzo Ullo, for defendants in error.
Before LACOMBE, COXE, and NOYES, Circuit Judges..
For other cases see same topic & § nvmbeh in Dec. & Am. Digs. 1907 to date, & Rep’r Indexes

Opinion:
NOYES, Circuit Judge.
When this, case was in this court before we said, upon the authority of the decisions of the Supreme Court as we then interpreted them, that whether the restraint of trade imposed by the combination in question was reasonable or unreasonable was immaterial. It is also apparent from the record that the Circuit Court upon the second trial in holding as a matter of law that the combination shown was in violation of the statute, acted upon the same view of the law.
In the light of the recent decisions of the Supreme Court in the Standard Oil (221 U. S. 1, 31 Sup. Ct. 502, 55 L. Ed. 619) and Tobacco (221 U. S. 106, 31 Sup. Ct. 632, 55 L. Ed. 663) Cases, the construction so placed upon the statute by this court and the Circuit Court must be regarded as erroneous and a new trial must be granted unless the contentions of the parties are correct that, upon the facts shown, this cóurt can ñow determine the legality of the combination.
It is, however, on the one hand, impossible for us to hold as a matter of law that the acts of the defendants as disclosed upon the present record amount to a combination in unreasonable restraint of trade. And, on the other hand, we think that it would be unduly prejudicial to the plaintiffs to reverse the- judgment with instructions to dismiss the complaint. The plaintiffs presented their case in view of the decision of this court that the reasonableness of the restraint imposed was im-. material and it would be most unjust to dismiss the complaint because their proof did not conform to another standard. Upon another trial the plaintiffs may be able to produce additional testimony tending to make out a case within the Supreme Court decisions referred to. _
_ The judgment of the Circuit Court is reversed and a new trial ordered.