Legal Document

338 U.S. 70 Supreme Court Reporter 177 94 L.Ed. 150 UNITED STATESv.YELLOW CAB CO. et al. Number 22. Argued Nov. 14—15, 1949. Decided Dec. 5, Mr. Charles or Haw. Hawai‘i Reports KFH45 A2 Weston, Washington, D.C., for appellant. Jesse Climenko, appellees. Justice JACKSON delivered the opinion of Court. 1 This suit in equity, under §§ and 2 Sherman Act, 15 United States Code KF62 2, Annotated KF65 U5 1, originally included three charges violation: (1) conspiracy to restrain monopolize transportation interstate travelers by taxicab between Chicago railroad stations their homes, offices hotels; (2) eliminate competition business transporting passengers different stations; (3) sale taxicabs control principal companies operating them Chicago, New York, Pittsburgh Minneapolis. On a previous appeal this held first not state case within statute, that charge no longer concerns us. versus Yellow Cab Co., 332 218, 67 1560, 91 2010. The court below found Government failed prove second is taken from part judgment, so has been eliminated. We have residue complaint, embodying third charge, alleges cause action but only on expressed assumption facts alleged are true, Company, supra, at page 224, 1563; trial Government, trial, all evidence its case. 80 F.Supp. 936. before us direct Expediting § 29 (Revised Judicial Code, 28 2101), an exercise our discretionary jurisdiction. question proposed whether sustains findings fact District basic issue, raises law existence independent it. issue does arise upon court's disregard misunderstanding some definite well-established fact. It extends almost every detail decision, saying 'ignored * substantially which deemed significant.' 3 What asks, effect, we try de novo record, reject nearly court, substitute contrary own. Specifications error fundamental ask reweigh review entirely concerned with imponderables, such as intent parties certain 1929 transactions, corporate officers were then acting personal official capacities, what was design purpose those who carried out twenty-year-old they had legitimate motives intending trade competitors car manufacture, General Motors, Ford, Chrysler Packard. 4 These chief issues weeks' duration. government relied large inferences 485 exhibits, introduced nine witnesses. defendants heavily oral testimony contradict inferences. record 1,674 closely-printed pages. 5 suggests 'seems reflect uncritical acceptance defendants' views be given consideration passing legal Court.' see it did indeed accept sustained view facts. But unable discover slightest justification accusation 'uncritically.' Also, rejected drew documents, find statement 'ignored' them. judgment supported opinion, prepared obvious care, analyzes shows reasons findings. To appears represent considered able judge, after patient hearing, Government's fell short allegations—a uncommon form litigation casualty, more immune than others. 6 Only last term accepted advanced triers totally opposed impeaches neither impartiality nor propriety conclusions. said, 'We constrained conclusion objective finder could resolve factual conflicts arising proceeding favor one litigant. ordinary lawsuit, civil criminal, normally depends resolution version dispute *' National Labor Relations Board Steamship 337 656, 659, 69 1283, 1285. 7 Rule 52, Federal Rules Civil Procedure, U.S.C.A., provides among other things: 'Findings shall set aside unless clearly erroneous, due regard opportunity judge credibility witnesses.' 8 Findings design, motive men act depend peculiarly credit witnesses hear If spoke truth, admittedly justified. listened observed made records would draw inference guilt concluded bear meaning contends. 9 ought unnecessary say 52 applies appeals well litigants. There exception permits it, even antitrust case, come virtually amounts intent, design. While, course, duty correct clear error, fact, establish any greater grievance here might where support either way decided weigh defendants. Such choice two permissible weight 'clearly erroneous.' 10 Judgment affirmed. 11 DOUGLAS CLARK took decision 12 BLACK, whom REED, concurs, dissenting. 13 showed without manufacturer through series stock purchases obtained 62% corporation itself interests local taxicabs. man president, general manager, director, dominant stockholder manufacturing company also important managerial position network companies. affiliated ownership, management result deliberate calculated companies' taxicabs, compulsion exercised purchases. Consequently despite integration there violation Act. & N Immigration Nationality Decisions think erred holding formed suppress indispensable element violations 14 In Griffith, 334 100, 105, 106, 68 941, 944, 92 1236, said: 'It is, however, always necessary specific build monopoly order anti-trust laws violated. sufficient restraint results consequence defendant's conduct arrangements. Patten, 226 525, 543, 33 141, 145, 57 333, 44 L.R.A.,N.S., 325; Masonite Corp., 316 265, 275, 62 1070, 1076, 86 1461. require showing cripple (E)ven if Court's appellees unreasonably monopolize, left master agreements restraining monopolizing Act.' Measured test fail conclusions Act proven. Since went subjective essential ingredient violations, make freedom buy manufacturers hobbled arrangements, regardless destroy competition. much tending show hobbling allegations complaint sufficiently broad present adjudication court. Moreover, presentation emphasized amount successful accomplishment restraints admitted objection based variance pleadings. See Procedure 15(b). 16 effect arrangements power dictate terms companies; thereafter limit exclusively sold defendant. instances bought prices above paid wholly free competitive market. evidence, accepted, finding illegal Griffith rule. should remanded consider aspect

Classification Label: 7