Document: 358 U.S. 516 79 S.Ct. 429 3 L.Ed.2d 475 Jack H. KELLY, Petitioner,v.Vincent W. KOSUGA. No. 267. Argued Jan. 22, 1959. Decided Feb. 24, Rehearing Denied April 6, See 359 962, 796. Mr. Joseph Louisell, Detroit, Mich., for petitioner. Lee A. Freeman, Chicago, Ill., respondent. Justice BRENNAN delivered the opinion of Court. 1 The respondent sued petitioner in District Court Northern Illinois failing to complete payment purchase price 50 cars onions which had sold December 1955. Jurisdiction was based on diversity citizenship. interposed defense that sale made pursuant and as an indivisible part agreement violated § Sherman AntiTrust Act, 26 Stat. 209, amended, 15 U.S.C. 1, U.S.C.A. 1. A motion strike this therefore facts underlying it must be taken those set up petitioner's answer. Petitioner were both engaged marketing onions. Petitioner, who a grower onions, admitted he bought from But alleged one Sam Siegel represented him other onion growers they owners substantial amounts storage, controlling 600 Chicago area 400 more elsewhere throughout country; further informed growers, at meetings called purpose November 1955, unless purchased large quantity these would deliver them futures exchange depressing cash market usually through trade channels, fearful cause considerable loss. It finally agreed by 287 stored area, not any remainder current trading season. purchasers themselves season; 'for creating false fictitious condition,' 'to fix limit amount State Illinois.' granted respondent's struck insufficient law.1 2 then found, undisputed facts, fact respondent, $960 per car, plus storage charges incurred after sale; withdrawn 13 designated places sale, but remainder; while some payments account come into default them; that, when began show signs deterioration, properly, repudiation petitioner, withdrew remaining account. entered summary judgment unpaid charges, less obtained having declined interim. Appeals Seventh Circuit affirmed. 257 F.2d 48. We certiorari consider availability pleaded illegality under Act action enforce terms state law. 811, 59, 54. As contract, plea violation Act2 has met with much favor This been notably case where purchaser recover goods sold. In Connolly v. Union Sewer Pipe Co., 184 540, 22 431, 46 L.Ed. 679, merchandise firm allegedly combination restraint allowed price. D. R. Wilder Mfg. Co. Corn Products Refining 236 165, 35 398, 59 520, standing offer, latter apparently sought take advantage, give rebate if exclusively it. Again, seller, Products, price, purchaser, Wilder, denied Act. observed Act's express remedies could added judicially including avoidance private contracts sanction. Id., pages 174—175, 401—402. Cf. Bruce's Juices, Inc., American 330 743, 755, 67 1015, 1021, 91 1219. B. Small Lamborn & 267 248, 252, 45 300, 302, 69 597, generally same effect. Obviously, law governs general rights duties sellers goods, and, effect federal statute is matter law, Sola Electric Jefferson 317 173, 176 177, 63 172, 173—174, 87 even actions courts Erie Tompkins, 304 64, 58 817, 82 1188, still should quick create policy nonenforcement beyond clearly requirement 4 recognizes import holdings Connolly, wilder Small, argues involve situations person party unlawful defend against grounds seller's acts; bears relation suit, claims held distinction asserted is, say least, its face paradoxical; quotes Court's McMullen Hoffman, 174 639, 669, 19 839, 851, 43 1117, dealt another context: 'It often stated similar cases defence very dishonest one, lies ill mouth defendant allege it, only public considerations, order better secure transactions.' evidently willing bitter well sweet passage. If collateral method enforcement antitrust laws, breadth argument suggests, said his theory creates strange class attorneys general. 5 event, analysis narrow scope respect indicates principle what be. leading here Continental Wall Paper Louis Voight Sons 212 227, 29 280, 53 486, relied There company purchases Continental, corporation existed selling agent numerous wallpaper companies doing business pool prices, excessive unreasonable, fixed agreement. so such vendor make carrying out restraints forbidden page 261, 292. Any thought might have proceeding broader shortly afterwards laid rest unanimous case. 402. goes no further. While contract between wrongdoers may frequently present situation, cf. Lyons Westinghouse Corp., Cir., 222 184, 188, character parties itself determinative. Past point enforcing precise conduct are guided overriding policy, Holmes put 'of preventing people getting people's property nothing purport buying it.' supra, 271, 296 (dissenting opinion). Supplying sanction provided capricious operation, Can 753 754, 1019—1020, avoided treating confined. 6 Accordingly, nondelivery enforced court, assumed, can hardly legal completed fair And 'divisibility' or verbal formula circular, see Corbin, Contracts, 1520, where, here, lawful consideration constitutes intelligible economic transaction itself, we do think inappropriate violative intent though furnished occasion restrictive sort question. Cincinnati, Portsmouth, Big Sandy Pomeroy Packet Bay, 200 179, 185, 208, 210, 428. 7 Affirmed. 8 BLACK DOUGLAS dissent. also defenses Commodity Exchange 9, 42 1003, 13, Antitrust Smith-Hurd Ann.Stat., c. 38, §§ 569, 573, 574, counterclaim alleging breach These issues decided adversely below preserved here. Without deciding point, shall assume allegations duly charged

Category: 7