UNITED STATES
v.
READING COMPANY; TEMPLE IRON COMPANY V. UNITED STATES; READING COMPANY V. UNITED STATES

U.S. | 1913-04-07
Nos. 198, 206, 217
Mr. Justice Day, Mr. Justice Hughes and Mr. Justice Pitney did not participate in the original case, nor in the making of this order.
228 U.S. 158 Supreme Court of the United States (1913) Positive Treatment
Also reported at: 57 L. Ed. 779 · 33 S. Ct. 509 · SCDB 1912-151 · 1913 U.S. LEXIS 2360
Cited by 5 cases

AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.

Synopsis

In this antitrust case arising from a prior Supreme Court decision condemning certain "sixty-five percent contracts" as unlawful, the Court modified its mandate to exclude five specific contracts from cancellation pending further examination. The Court agreed to dismiss the case against the Pennsylvania Coal Company based on government concession that its contract was substantially different from the condemned agreements, but remanded four other petitioners' contracts to the District Court for determination of whether they fell within the unlawful category or were distinguishable on their merits.

© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.

Opinion of the Court

The following order was entered:

This cause came on again to be heard upon five several petitions filed by the Pennsylvania Coal Company, The Elk Hill Coal & Iron Company, The New York, Susquehanna and Western Coal Company, Hillside Coal & Iron Company, and the Delaware, Lackawanna & Western Railroad Company, partiés to the cause as alleged holders of sixty-five per cent, coal contracts, praying that the direction in the opinion heretofore filed that the cause should be remanded with direction to enter a decree cancelling each and every of the sixty-five per cent, contracts referred to in the pleadings held by any of the parties to the cause, and for a modification of the mandate so as to exclude from cancellation the five several contracts described and referred to in the said five separate petitions.

And it appearing that the United States, by its Attorney General, has answered the several petitions, and that in respect to that of the Pennsylvania Coal Company assents to the petition and consents that such modification be made as to dismiss the bill in so far as it is thereby sought to cancel the contract between the Pennsylvania Coal Company and the Elk Hill Coal & Iron Company of March 1, 1902, referred to in the petition of the Pennsylvania Coal Company, upon the concession that the agreement “is substantially different from the series of agreements known as the sixty-five per cent, contracts adjudged unlawful by this court,” it is accordingly so ordered. As to the applications of the four other petitioners named above for like relief, the United States denies and contests the right of each, contending that in substance and principle the facts in respect of each of the contracts in respect of which relief is sought, are not similar to the contract between the Pennsylvania Coal Company and the Elk Hill Coal & Iron Company, but fall within the general series of the sixty-five per cent, contracts condemned by the judgment of this court.

Upon this issue the transcript is confusing and the briefs inadequate. The court therefore deems it wise in the exercise of its judgment to decline any determination of the question upon the present record. It is therefore ordered that the mandate of this court be so modified as to exclude from the direction to cancel the sixty-five per cent, contracts referred to in the pleadings the said contracts mentioned in the four petitions, namely, that of the Elk Hill Coal & Iron Company, the New York, Susquehanna & Western Coal Co., Hillside Coal & Iron Company, and the Delaware, Lackawanna & Western Railroad Company, and that the cause, so far as concerns the contracts of the said petitioners, be remanded to the District Court with direction to hear and determine the merits as presented by said petitioners, and make such decree as law and justice require.

Per Mr. Justice Lurton.

Mr. Justice Day, Mr. Justice Hughes and Mr. Justice Pitney did not participate in the original case, nor in the making of this order.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By

  • United States v. E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., 366 U.S. 316 (U.S. 1961)
    …United States, 221 U. S. 1 (1911); United States v. American Tobacco Co., 221 U. S. 106 (1911); United States v. Union Pacific R. Co., 226 U. S. 61 (1912), modified, 226 U. S. 470 (1913); United States v. Reading Co., 226 U. S. 324 (1912), modified, 228 U. S. 158 (1913); United States v. Reading Co., 253 U. S. 26 (1920), modified after remand, Continental Ins. Co. v. United States, 259 U. S. 156 (1922); United States v. Lehigh Valley R. Co., 254 U. S. 255 (1920); United States v. Southern Pacific Co., 259 U.…
  • United States v. Delaware, 238 U.S. 516 (U.S. 1915)
  • Walker Distrib. Co. v. Lucky Lager Brewing Co., 323 F.2d 1 (9th Cir. 1963)
    …L.Ed. 505; Martens v. Barrett, 5 Cir., 1957, 245 F. 2d 844; Peter v. Western Newspaper Union, 5 Cir., 1953, 200 F. 2d 867; Loeb v. Eastman Kodak Co., 3 Cir., 1910, 183 F. 704; cf. United Copper Sec. Co. v. Amalgamated Copper Co., 1917, 244 U.S. 261, 33 S.Ct. 509, 61 L.Ed. 1119.) The judgment against appellants T. G. Walker and Rose Walker is affirmed; the judgment against Walker Distributing Company, Inc., is affirmed, as to count three, and is reversed, as to count two, and the matter is remanded for furt…

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw