Opinion ID: 330248
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The commerce requirement.

Text: The district court charged: 65 Each of these plaintiffs, to be entitled to prevail on its claim under Section 7 of the Clayton Act, must prove . . . : 66 First, that the assets acquired by the defendant were acquired from a corporation engaged in interstate commerce. (4 App. at 2342a). Elsewhere, however, the court had charged: 67 The undisputed evidence shows that Brunswick acquired Belmont Lanes in April 1965. As a matter of law this was an acquisition in a line of commerce, the operation of bowling centers, in a section of the country, namely, the Pueblo, Colorado, metropolitan area. (4 App. at 2317a). 68 It gave almost the identical instruction with respect to the Poughkeepsie acquisition. (4 App. at 2319a). 69 Brunswick contends (1) that the charge is internally inconsistent and (2) that the specific reference to the acquisitions being in a line of commerce amounted to a directed verdict on the interstate commerce issue. We think, however, that in the first quotation the court refers to the engaged in commerce requirement, while in the second, it refers to the in any line of commerce in any section of the country requirement. Certainly bowling centers are in a line of commerce in a section of the country, although arguably they are only engaged in local rather than interstate commerce. 70 The interstate commerce charge is cryptic but we need not comment on it any further. When the case is retried, the district court will have to apply the new § 7 interstate commerce test laid down in United States v. American Building Maintenance Industries, supra. See Part IV B, supra. 71