Court Opinion

ID: 8780561
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-11-26 13:16:50.74387+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:02:48.763664
License: Public Domain

COXE, Circuit Judge
(dissenting). I am unable to agree with the majority. Courts are organized to reach results within a reasonable time. This action was begun eight years ago, it has been tried twice, the last trial occupying'five days; it has been argued twice in this court. In such circumstances it is obvious that the labor of so many years should not be set at naught unless manifest error compels it.
The sole reason assigned for reversal is that this court stated in its former opinion, what was unquestionably the law at that time, that where it was shown that a contract, combination or conspiracy actually restrained trade or commerce, it was immaterial whether such restraint was reasonable or unreasonable. It is asserted that the trial judge followed this view of the law in holding that the combination in question was in violation of the statute and that his ruling in this regard was error. I am unable to discover the ruling, exception or assignment of error which supports this contention or presents this question. As the evidence of the unlawful conspiracy is in writing, there was no controverted fact regarding its terms. Clearly it was the duty of the court and not of the jury to construe this uncontradicted evidence. The only question of fact which it was necessary to determine, in order properly to interpret the agreement between the carriers, was submitted to the jury with clear and careful instructions. The judge charged as follows :
“Now the right of recovery herein depends upon whether the rate charged the plaintiffs was reasonable or unreasonable, and if it was unreasonable, all the defendants, by their unlawful combination in restraint of trade, coerce or compel the plaintiffs to pay a rate greater than a reasonable rate, simply to effectuate the primary purpose of the combination, namely, to prevent competition in the transportation oí merchandise. * * * Now, gentlemen, notwithstanding the fact that I have stated to you as matter of law that this was a combination forbidden by the Sherman act, the question submitted to you is whether the rate was reasonable or unreasonable, and that is a question to he determined by you, and it is for you to say whether the 10 per cent, was charged to coerce the plaintiffs to patronize the same ships or not. * * * If, in your judgment, the rate charged by these lines during this period of time was not excessive, if it was reasonable and just, in view of the conditions and circumstances to which I will refer hereafter, then that ends the case, and you will pay no further attention to any of the questions hero involved, for in that event, your verdict will be for the defendants.”
There is much more to the same effect but the foregoing is sufficient.
The language, of the court seems almost prophetic of the rule of the recent decisions of the Supreme Court. If the Standard Oil and Tobacco decisions had been before him while delivering the charge, it is not easy to see how the judge could have followed them more accurately. We have, then, a combination which the jury has found restrained trade by the imposition of excessive and unreasonable charges. In other words, a combination forbidden by the law, whether the “rule of *538reason” be or be not applied. No one pretends that any new facts will be presented at a new trial. Should one be ordered, the case will appear for a third time in this court upon the same facts and we will then have to render a decision which should, in my judgment, be rendered now.
In its last analysis, the question, whether the agreement in controversy is within the prohibition of the Sherman act (Act July 2, 1890, c. 647, 26 Stat. 209 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 3200]), is one of law for the court and should be answered without further delay.' The alleged error considered by the majority is not presented by the record but, even if it were, the question is one of law which should be disposed of by the court on the present record.