Court Opinion

ID: 9652552
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 17:25:53.6052+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:12:52.311418
License: Public Domain

HOUGH, Circuit Judge
(dissenting). With the larger part of the majority opinion I entirely agree, and think it demonstrates that this action abates as to any defendant deceased, unless abatement is prevented by some statutory provision. But I cannot agree that any statutory reason for nonabatement is found in section 7 of the Sherman Act; i. e., I consider the distinction drawn between the words “business” and “property” by the majority opinion to be quite illusory, or unreal.
That there is a difference in meaning or breadth of meaning between the words “business” and “property” does not assist de-_ cisión in this case. Much property is not business, but all business is property; consequently under this statute I see no distinction between the two words, in so far as abatement of action is concerned. For this reason alone I dissent.