Document: 349 U.S. 322 75 S.Ct. 865 99 L.Ed. 1122 Charles LAWLOR and Mitchell Pantzer, Co-Partners Trading as Independent Poster Exchange, Petitioners,v.NATIONAL SCREEN SERVICE CORPORATION et al. No. 163. Argued Feb. 9, 10, 1955. Decided June 6, Mr. Francis T. Anderson, Philadelphia, Pa., for petitioners. Louis Nizer, New York City, respondent National Screen Service Corp. Earl G. Harrison, respondents Columbia Pictures Chief Justice WARREN delivered the opinion of Court. 1 This is an action to recover treble damages alleged violation federal antitrust laws. The only question presented whether barred, in circumstances case, under doctrine res judicata. 2 Petitioners are engaged business leasing advertising posters motion picture exhibitors Philadelphia area. Such posters, known trade standard accessories, embody copy-righted matter from pictures being advertised. Until recent years, accessories could be purchased directly companies themselves. Beginning with Paramount 1939, however, eight major producers granted Corporation exclusive right manufacture distribute various materials, including well specialty film trailers, their pictures. RKO followed 1940, Loew's 1942, Universal 1944, 1945, United Artists Warner Brothers 1946, 20th Century Fox 1947. 3 In together a number others similar businesses, petitioners commenced treble-damage anti-trust against three who had already licenses Screen. complaint that defendants conspired establish monopoly distribution by means plaintiffs' businesses been injured consequence. also was then negotiating other procure licenses. addition damages, injunction sought defendants' 'illegal acts practices.' 4 1943, prior any trial, suit settled. basis settlement agreement furnish plaintiffs all distributed pursuant its license agreements producers, which might executed future. exchange, agreed they would withdraw pay materials at specified prices. Pursuant settlement, dismissed 'with prejudice' court order. No findings fact or law were made. 5 sublicense run years. 1946 it renewed another five-year term. 1949, while still force, brought instant action, again seeking injunctive relief. Named here—were Screen, parties 1942 suit, five licensed subsequent dismissal suit. 6 present complaint, allege merely device used case perpetuate conspiracy monopoly. They allege: have joined since 1943; has deliberately made slow erratic deliveries effort destroy petitioners' business; same purpose tie-in sales exploiting power.1 seek resulting injuries suffered August 16, 1943 words, period beginning several months after complaint. 7 1951, on summary judgment, District Court held entitled relief because undisputed facts supported claim unlawful monopoly.2 As conflicting evidence issue trial necessary.3 But 1953, before decree framed, moved dismiss ground judgment Court, judge sitting, Appeals Third Circuit affirmed.4 We certiorari importance thus enforcement laws.5 8 basic distinction between doctrines judicata collateral estoppel, those terms this frequently emphasized.6 Thus, judicata, 'on merits' involving privies bars second based cause action. Under hand, such precludes relitigation issues actually litigated determined regardless Recognizing distinction, below concluded 'No estoppel former involved never tried there not, therefore, finding will preclude litigation questioning thereafter.'7 Turning correctly stated 'whether suing upon 'same action' sued lost.'8 answered affirmative two suits 'essentially course wrongful conduct.'9 acknowledged 'there some additional allegations, new say done earlier suit' 'Additional 1949 suit', but 'in substance * *.'10 9 It true dismissing previous later action.11 likewise unaccompanied hence did not bind issue—such legality effect business—which arise connection action.12 To extent we accord decision below. believe, erred concluding 10 That both conduct' decisive. conduct—for example, abatable nuisance—may give rise more than single action.13 And so here. conduct presently complained judgment.14 addition, violations here—deliberately sales, among others—not While recovery claims arising entry, cannot given extinguishing even exist possibly case. interim, moreover, substantial change scope monopoly; result control over market increased nearly 100%.15 these circumstances, regarded series individual torts one continuing tort, does constitute bar 11 conclusion unaffected circumstance sought, which, if granted, prevented illegal now of. A combination constituting causes side congeal into equitable sought. And, noted, action.16 There no merit, respondents' contention precluded failure press demand Particularly view public interest vigilant laws through instrumentality private Acceptance novel confer them partial immunity civil liability future violations. consistent neither nor 12 With respect yet our decision. relationship "close enough bring within judicata."17 conclusion, agree. need stop consider outer bounds rule privity allied concepts.18 sufficient here point out do fall orthodox categories privies;19 enter until rely;20 event obligation join joint tort-feasors indispensable parties;21 'altogether dependent culpability' suit.22 13 reversed remanded further proceedings conformity opinion. 14 Reversed. 15 HARLAN took part consideration 'Defendant NATIONAL, illegally intent plaintiff's business, reduces rental price said talking trailers exhibitors, customers, agree beforehand purchase lease exploitation films exhibited, defendant NATIONAL.' F.Supp. 180, 188. Ibid. 211 F.2d 934. 348 810, 42. E.g., Cromwell v. County Sac, 94 351, 352—353, 24 195; States Moser, 266 236, 241, 45 66, 67, 69 262. See Restatement, Judgments, §§ 47, 48, 68. term broadly Restatement cover merger, bar, direct estoppel. Id., c. 3, Introductory Note. 934, 935. page 936. pages 936—937. Parker, 120 89, 95, 454, 458, 30 601; International Building Co., 345 502, 506, 73 807, 809, 97 1182. supra, 505, 808, 809. 'We conclude decisions entered Tax years 1933, 1938, 1939 pro forma acceptance settle controversy reasons undisclosed. showing either record extrinsic evidence, see Russell Place, 606, 608, 214, raised pleadings submitted determination court. may parties. Perhaps, inferred, depreciation. different reason, exigency bankruptcy proceeding. reaches us, unable tell merits consideration.' § 62, Comment g. Antitrust expressly abatable. U.S.C. 26, U.S.C.A. 26. Compare Federal Trade Commission Raladam 316 149, 150—151, 62 966, 967, 968, 86 1336. 183—184. 40% Screen's consisted (Paramount RKO) producers. 20% 33% third producer (Loew's). pertinence 'the percentage controlled,' Steel 334 495, 527—528, 68 1107, 1124, 92 1533. 16 applicable equity, 46, b; id., 53, 17 937. 18 4. 19 83, a: 'those although *; whose interests represented party successors interest. *' 20 Bruszewski States, Cir., 181 419, courts relied. should noted application 21 94. Bigelow Old Dominion Copper 225 111, 132, 32 641, 644, 56 1009. 22 127, 642.

Category: 7