Court Opinion

ID: 8771290
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-11-26 12:45:16.296793+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:02:14.192121
License: Public Domain

SHELBY, Circuit Judge
(after stating the facts as above). This is an action for threefold damages under section 7, Act July 2, 1890 (chapter 647, 26 Stat. 210 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 3202]). An exception of no cause of action was sustained by the court fcelow. The sole question therefore is whether, on the facts alleged in the petition and admitted by the exception, this action can be maintained. The question can only be decided by an examination of the relevant parts of the act (which we copy in the margin1) in connection with the aver-ments of the petition.
*407The first and second sections of the statute describe and condemn certain acts which restrain interstate or foreign commerce, and the seventh section provides that one who is injured in his business or property by another by reason of anything forbidden by the statute may sue for threefold damages. To repeat, the first and second sections condemn certain acts, and punish them as misdemeanors. The seventh section is to the effect that those who do the forbidden things, commit the misdemeanors, may be sued in a civil action for threefold damages by one who is injured in his business or property. It follows therefore that the petition should charge, and that is all that is required: (1) That the defendants have done one or more of the forbidden things; (2) that by such action of the defendants, the plaintiff has been injured in its business or property; and (3) the amount or value of such injury. If the petition contains these essential averments, it is not subject to an exception of no cause of action, although it may contain surplusage and may specify some items of damages which may not be recoverable.
But, before we examine the petition, we must look closer at the statute on which it is framed. Here is the description it gives of the condemned misdemeanors:
•‘See. ,1. Every contract, combination in the form of trust or otherwise, or conspiracy, in restraint of irado or commerce among the several states, or with foreign nations, is hereby declared to be illegal. Every person who shall make any such contract or engage in any such combination or conspiracy, shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor. * * * ”
“Sec. 2. Every person who shall monopolize, or attempt to monopolize, or combine or conspire with any other person or persons, to monopolize any part of the trade or commerce among the several states, or with foreign nations, shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor. * * * ”
Presently we must examine the petition to see whether it charges that the defendants did one or more of these forbidden things. If it does so charge, it will remain to be determined whether there are averments showing that the plaintiff comes within the seventh section, to wit:
“Sec. 7. Any person who shall be injured in his business or property by any other person or corporation by reason of anything forbidden or declared to be unlawful by this act, may sue therefor, * * * and shall recover threefold the damages by him sustained. * * * ”
This more elaborate statement of the statute makes it plain that the petition need only aver, and state facts to show, that the defendants have committed one or more of the offenses condemned by the first and second sections, that the plaintiff is a person injured within the meaning of the seventh section, and the amount of damages it sus*408tained by such injury. Loewe v. Lawlor, 208 U. S. 274, 28 Sup. Ct. 301, 52 L. Ed. 488, was an action like this, brought under section 7 of the act. A demurrer was sustained to the declaration by the lower court, and in reversing the judgment' Mr. Chief Justice Fuller, speaking for the court, had occasion to summarize the averments in holding them sufficient:
“We Rave given the declaration in full in the margin, and it appears therefrom: That it is charged that defendants formed a combination to directly restrain plaintiffs’ trade; that the trade to be restrained was interstate; that certain means to attain such restraint were contrived to be used and employed to that end; that those means were so used and employed by defendants; and that thereby they injured plaintiffs’ property and business.”
We turn now to the petition to see if it has the necessary allegations to sustain the action, looking at it with the statute before us, aided by the summary of the declaration held to be good by the Supreme Court in Loewe v. Lawlor, supra.
We find an elaborate charge of a combination and conspiracy in restraint of interstate trade or commerce by the three defendants. Other persons, who are not sued, are named as parties to the conspiracy. Such other persons are corporations owned in part and controlled by one or more of the alleged conspirators who are sued. At great length, and- with minute details, the petition alleges and describes this combination or conspiracy in restraint of interstate trade or commerce, showing that it is such as is condemned by the first section of the act. With equal fullness, there are allegations of an attempt by the defendants, with other conspirators, to monopolize the trade or commerce in tobacco among the several states, such an attempt and conspiracy as is condemned by the second section of the act. It is then alleged that the plaintiff was engaged in interstate trade or business, such as that engaged in by the defendant companies, and that the described acts of the defendants were done for the purpose of obtaining a monopoly and destroying the business of the plaintiff. It is further alleged that by such conspiracies and combinations of the defendants, and by their efforts to obtain a monopoly, the business of the plaintiff was injured greatly, and that the plaintiff was damaged to the extent of $168,926.85. The full petition is given in the statement of the case. It would serve no useful purpose now to condense and restate the facts alleged. If the averments are true — and the exception of no cause of action admits them to be true — the defendants are guilty of the misdemeanors charged in the first and second sections of the act, and the plaintiff has been injured in its business or property within the meaning of the seventh section.
We are of opinion therefore that the court erred in sustaining the exception of no cause of action.
The judgment of the Circuit Court is reversed, and the cause remanded for a new trial.

An act to protect trade and commerce against unlawful restraints and monopolies.
See. 1. Every contract, combination in the form of trust or otherwise, or conspiracy, in restraint or trade or commerce among the several states, or with foreign nations, is hereby declared to be illegal. Every person who shall make any such contract or engage in any such combination or conspiracy, shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and, on conviction thereof, shall be punished by fine not exceeding five thousand dollars, or by imprisonment not exceeding one year, or by both said punishments, in the discretion of the court.
See. 2. Every person who shall monopolize, or attempt to monopolize, or combine or conspire with any other person or persons, to monopolize any part of the trade or commerce among the several states, or with foreign nations, shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and, on conviction thereof, shall be punished by fine not exceeding five thousand dollars, or by imprisonment not exceeding one year, or by both said punishments, in the discretion of the court.
Sec. 7. Any person who shall be injured in his business or property by any *407other person or corporation by reason of anything forbidden or declared to be unlawful by this act, may sue therefor in any Circuit 'Court of the United States in the district in which the defendant resides or is found, without respect to the amount in controversy, and shall recover threefold the damages by him sustained, and the costs ol' suit, including a reasonable attorney’s fee.
Sec. 8. That the word “person.” or “persons,” wherever used in this act shall' be deemed to include corporations and associations existing under or authorized by the laws of either the United States, the laws of any of the territories, the laws of any state, or the laws of any foreign country.