Document: 398 U.S. 268 90 S.Ct. 1723 26 L.Ed.2d 226 UNITED STATES, appellant,v.ARMOUR & COMPANY et al. No. 103. Supreme Court of the United States October Term, 1969. Argued March 5, 1970. June 1, 1970 James van R. Springer, Washington, D. C., for appellant. Herbert A. Bergson, appellees. PER CURIAM. 1 The judgment is vacated and case remanded to District Northern Illinois with instructions dismiss as moot. 2 Mr. Justice DOUGLAS, dissenting. 3 I dissent from dismissal 4 In an historic consent decree giant meatpackers were separated in a complete continuing way general food business, retaining customary power grant additional relief, at foot decree. Some years later motions vacate made, overruling them was affirmed by this Court. Swift Co. v. States, 276 311, 48 72 L.Ed. 587. Later Armour other meatpacker defendants, claiming that conditions business had changed, sought modifications relieve structural bars against engaging various aspects retail meat business. That effort also unsuccessful. Co., 286 106, 52 460, 76 999. Later, another attempt made obtain similar relief it too failed. 189 F.Supp. 885, aff'd, 367 909, 81 1918, 6 1249. 5 BLACK took no part consideration or decision case. MARSHALL 7 now second largest Nation. General Host engaged products business; operates some 380 grocery stores, lodges, restaurants, coffee shops. It is, words, lines which Armour, party decree, would be barred, whether did so directly through stock ownership. 8 Against resistance Host, held about 16 1/2% Armour's outstanding stock, undertook acquire least 51% it. asked having jurisdiction over make under § Sherman Act, Stat. 210, amended, 15 U.S.C. 5. refusal do was, think, error. After Court's ruling, acquired 57% stock. As result, species monopoly aimed achieved. 9 appears, has transferred, pursuant authority Interstate Commerce Commission, its Greyhound Corporation. alleged Greyhound, like prohibited contends Greyhound's control inconsistent Host's control. states, owns interests could not own virtue 10 Neither nor could, course, contempt written, they parties. But presumably knew seemingly fashioned procedure circumvent ample restrain frustrating provides: 11 'Whenever shall appear court before any proceeding section title may pending, ends justice require parties should brought court, cause summoned, reside district not; subpoenas end served marshal thereof.' 12 have, opportunity litigate question their acts interfere citation contempt. 13 Moreover, Rule 25(c) Federal Rules Civil Procedure 14 'In transfer interest, action continued original party, unless upon motion directs person whom interest transferred substituted joined party. Service provided subdivision (a) rule.' Unless proceeds supplement there remedy. Without hearing urge, cannot punished though victim violation, participant. Under either Greyhound. Yet combination arguably realized them, they, Armour. misconception thrust evident statement 'General large packer extending monopolistic grasp toward rest industry use already established distributing facilities, superior financial resources means making dominant position felt, resulting restraint trade squeezing out present potential competitors. Rather, wholly separate corporate entity, shares evinced acquiring shares.' evil interference meatpacking Host—the precise type aimed. And apparently acquisition. 17 Cardozo speaking said: 18 'Whether defendants resume [their predatory practices] if deal groceries again, we know. They certainly have temptation Their low overhead gigantic size, even when are viewed units, still put starve weaker rivals. Mere according holding offense Act magnified point amounts * *, but size carries abuse ignored proved been utilized past. all events framed theory. theory after among packers broken up dissolved, individual units huge capacity engage forms adjuncts sale meats taken altogether. say privilege withdrawn limited time, until respect effectually up. said renounced forever, within acting collectively singly. disintegrated, stop that. To curb aggressions remain, check power, independently, wage war extermination dealers than themselves. Groceries enumerated articles sell all, wholesale retail. Even things free sell, products, retail.' 116-117, 19 added addition meats, '[t]he will theirs renew waged gone by.' Id., 118, S.Ct., 464. 20 same sentiment previously stated Senate Senator (now Justice) Black opposing move relax His fear opening doors meatpackers:1 21 'If canceled set aside governmental consent, trust only permitted encouraged rear stupendous ominous form North, South, East, West alike. Such tacitly invite such one stroke pen center Nation lift price bread Maine California.' 22 he spoke prospectus based expected modification decree:2 23 "With big enter field anew, nation-wide chains shops, overshadow existing enterprises States.' 24 25 "As nucleus stores contemplate take most store existing, chains, operate departments 20,000 30,000 shops parts country. "It pay every investor scrutinize closely increasing profit potentialities packing organizations." 27 spectre merging today then. matter how scheme effectuated, acquires vice versa. On facts here tendered, determine interfered whether, de novo matter, constitutes violation Act. issue narrower one. If designed avoid rather obvious. Why does without connivance achieves result unilaterally? A federal inherent prevent obstruction 'force, guile, otherwise,' charged defendant. See Mississippi Valley Barge Line 273 aff'd sub nom. Osbourne 389 579, 88 692, 779. For equity principle nonparty bound 'not with, obstruct, course justice,' treat order 'unworthy notice.' Seaward Paterson, [1897] Ch. 545, 554. Cf. 65(d), Procedure. 28 remand full on interference. Cong.Rec. 1239. 9336.

Category: 7