UNITED STATES
v.
AMERICAN-ASIATIC STEAMSHIP COMPANY ET AL.; UNITED STATES V. PRINCE LINE, LIMITED, ET AL.

U.S. | 1917-01-22
Nos. 138, 169
242 U.S. 537 Supreme Court of the United States (1917) Negative Treatment
Also reported at: 61 L. Ed. 479 · 37 S. Ct. 233 · SCDB 1916-183 · 1917 U.S. LEXIS 2154
Cited by 30 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

The United States sought to enjoin agreements between British, German, and American steamship companies, contending they violated the Sherman Antitrust Act. The Supreme Court reversed the lower courts' dismissals on the ground that the cases had become moot when the agreements were dissolved due to World War I, and remanded the cases with instructions to dismiss without prejudice, allowing the United States to pursue future antitrust claims against any actual contracts found to violate the Act.

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

Opinion of the Court
Mr. Chief Justice White,

Memorandum opinion by

Mr. Chief Justice White,

by direction of the court.

The United States sued to restrain the carrying out of agreements between British, German and American steam ship companies who were defendants, on the ground that they were in violation of the Anti-Trust Act of July 2, 1890, c. 647, 26 Stat. 209. Overruling the contention that that act did not relate to contracts concerning ocean carriage, the court entered decrees against the United States in both cases dismissing the bills for want of equity on the ground that the assailed agreements were not in conflict with the Anti-Trust Act except as to a particular discrimination found to have been practiced in one of the. cases which was provided against. 220 Fed. Rep. 230. At the time this action was taken by the court below, as the result of the European War, the assailed agreements had been dissolved and the questions raised by the bills were therefore purely moot, as directly decided to be the case as to a similar situation in United States v. Hamburg-American Co., 239 U. S. 466.

Under these circumstances the request now made by the United States that the doctrine announced in the Hamburg-American Case be applied to both of these cases and the relief afforded in that case be awarded, is well founded and must be granted. It follows, therefore, that the decrees below must be reversed and the cases be remanded to the court below with directions to dismiss the bills without prejudice to the right of the United States in the future to assail any actual contract or combination deemed to offend against the Anti-Trust Act.

And it is so ordered.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By

  • United States v. Munsingwear, Inc., 340 U.S. 36 (U.S. 1950)
    …sition in federal civil cases: New Orleans Flour Inspectors v. Glover, 161 U. S. 101, 103, modifying 160 U. S. 170; United States v. Hamburg-American Co., 239 U. S. 466; Berry v. Davis, 242 U. S. 468; United States v. American-Asiatic Steamship Co., 242 U. S. 537; Board of Public Utility Commissioners v. Compañia General de Tabacos de Filipinas, 249 U. S. 425; Commercial Cable Co. v. Burleson, 250 U. S. 360; United States v. Alaska [*40] Steamship Co., 253 U. S. 113; Heitmuller v. Stokes, 256 U. S. 359; Athe…
  • Fed. Mar. Bd. v. Isbrandtsen Co., Inc., 356 U.S. 481 (U.S. 1958)
    …Marx, International Shipping Cartels, 207. 4 F. M. B. 706. 737. 739-740. 1956 Am. Mar. Cas. 414. 451. 454. On appeal, the very limited decrees obtained by the Government against some members of two of the conferences were reversed, 239 U. S. 466, 242 U. S. 537, and the suits directed to be dismissed on the score of mootness because of World War I. It is worth noting that in §§ 14 Fourth and 15 the statute speaks in terms of “unjust” discrimination, a standard to which it was quite clearly the legislative…
  • Commercial Cable Co. v. Burleson, 250 U.S. 360 (U.S. 1919)
    …cted the rights asserted by the complainants, ought not to be allowed to stand, but on the contrary, following the well established precedents (United [*363] States v. Hamburg-American Co., 239 U. S. 466; United States v. American-Asiatic S. S. Co., 242 U. S. 537), the decrees below should be reversed and the cases remanded to the lower court with directions to set aside the decrees and to substitute decrees dismissing the bills without prejudice and without costs, because the controversy which they involve…

Previewing 3 of 9 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw