Document: 340 U.S. 211 71 S.Ct. 259 95 L.Ed. 219 KIEFER-STEWART CO.v.JOSEPH E. SEAGRAM & SONS, Inc., et al. No. 297. Argued Dec. 8, 1950. Decided Jan. 2, 1951. Rehearing Denied Feb. 26, See 939, 487. Mr. Paul A. Porter, Washington, D.C., Joseph J. Daniels, Indianapolis, Ind., for petitioner. Y. Davis, respondents. Justice BLACK delivered the opinion of Court. 1 The petitioner, Kiefer-Stewart Company, is an Indiana drug concern which does a wholesale liquor business. Respondents, Seagram and Calvert corporations, are affiliated companies that sell in interstate commerce to wholesalers. Petitioner brought this action federal district court treble damages under Sherman Act. 15 U.S.C. §§ 1, 15, U.S.C.A. 15. complaint charged respondents had agreed or conspired only those wholesalers who would resell at prices fixed by Calvert, agreement deprived petitioner continuing supply its great damage.1 On trial, evidence was introduced tending show maximum above could not resell. jury returned verdict were awarded. Court Appeals Seventh Circuit reversed. 182 F.2d 228. It held among fix resale did violate Act because such promoted rather than restrained competition. also insufficient acted concert. Doubt as correctness decision on questions important antitrust litigation prompted us grant certiorari. 863, 89. 2 erred holding competitors their products For agreements, no less minimum prices, cripple freedom traders thereby restrain ability accordance with own judgment. We reaffirm what we said United States v. Socony-Vacuum Oil Co., 310 150, 223, 60 811, 844, 84 1129: 'Under combination formed purpose effect raising, depressing, fixing, pegging, stabilizing price commodity foreign illegal per se.' 3 support finding prices. authorized accept following facts: refused others unless purchasers Seagram. first willing without restrictive condition arrangements made buy large quantities liquor. subsequently informed however, be carried out 'to go along Seagram.' Moreover, about time conferences officials concerning sales Thereafter, identical terms fixing retail both resumed other abide conditions, but shipments have been 4 foregoing sufficient justify challenged unity common design understanding when they forbade exceed ceilings. Thus, there conclusion conspiracy existed, American Tobacco Co. States, 328 781, 809—810, 66 1125, 1138, 90 1575, even though, point out, testimony record indicating policies arrived independently. 5 Respondents seek judgment reversal grounds passed argued here orally briefs. These raise issues law calling examination appraisal will consider them. District designed set sale violation laws. now contended trial charging petitioner's part conspiracy, if proved, defense present cause action. hold instruction correct. acting individually perhapse might deal any all But makes it offense agree themselves stop selling particular customers. If guilty infractions laws, responsible appropriate proceedings against them Government injured private persons. alleged conduct legalize unlawful nor immunize liability injured. Cf. Fashion Originators' Guild Federal Trade Comm., 312 457, 668, 61 703, 85 949; Mandeville Island Farms Crystal Sugar 334 219, 242—243, 68 996, 1009, 92 1328. 6 next suggest status 'mere instrumentalities single manufacturing-merchandising unit' impossible manner forbidden suggestion runs counter our past decisions ownership control liberate corporations from impact E.g. Yellow Cab 332 218, 67 1560, 91 2010. rule especially applicable where, here, competitors. 7 claimed improperly withdraw issue respondents' Clayton proved. A fair reading instructions jury, reveals submitted convinced more formal withdrawal served solely confuse. 8 Other contentions error admission charge so devoid merit unnecessary discuss 9 reversed affirmed. ordered. 10 Judgment Act, § 18, theory has abandoned here. 215, 261, infra.

Category: 7