Baran v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co.
District Court, S.D. New York
At Law. Action by Harold P. Baran against the Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company and the Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company, Incorporated, of New York. On motion to compel separate statement of commingled causes of action, respectively based on the Sherman Anti-Trust Act and on the Clayton Act.
1Opinion of the Court
AUGUSTUS N. HAND, District Judge.
The complaint sets out in one cause of action facts which may be regarded as violations of the Sherman Anti-Trust Act (Act July 2, 1890, c. 647, 26 Stat. 209 [Comp. St. §§ 8820-8823, 8827-8830]) and the Clayton Act (Act Oct. 15, 1914, c. 323, 38 Stat. 730). Some of them apparently violate one of these acts, and some may violate both. These are separate acts, and remain so in spite of certain clauses of the Clayton Act which relate to both. I think the defendants are entitled to have these commingled causes of action separately stated, so that they may better…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Buckeye Powder Co. v. E. I. Du Pont De Nemours Powder Co.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1915
- Rice v. Standard Oil Co.U.S. Circuit Court for the District of New Jersey · 1905
- Cilley v. United Shoe Machinery Co.District Court, D. Massachusetts · 1913
3Cited by5 opinions
- Hansen Packing Co. v. Armour & Co.District Court, S.D. New York · 1936
- FL Mendez & Co. v. General Motors CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1947
- La Chappelle v. United Shoe Machinery Corp.District Court, D. Massachusetts · 1936
- FL Mendez & Co. v. General Motors CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1947
- Seaboard Terminals Corp. v. Standard Oil Co.District Court, S.D. New York · 1936