Cincinnati, Portsmouth, Big Sandy and Pomeroy Packet Co. v. Bay
Supreme Court of the United States
ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF OHIO. The facts are stated in the opinion. The contract is void under the Sherman act. Repeated attempts have been made to restrict the broad and general language of the statute, but the Federal courts and especially this court have uniformly held that the act means just what it says and cannot be confined to unreasonable restraints nor such as were condemned by the common law before its passage.
Read the full summary
ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF OHIO. The facts are stated in the opinion. The contract is void under the Sherman act. Repeated attempts have been made to restrict the broad and general language of the statute, but the Federal courts and especially this court have uniformly held that the act means just what it says and cannot be confined to unreasonable restraints nor such as were condemned by the common law before its passage. United States v. Freight &.ssn:, 166 U.. S. 290, 312, 340; United States v. Joint Traffic Assn.,, 171 U. S. 505, 573, 575; United States v. Addyston Pipe ■&…
1Opinion of the CourtJustice Holmes
This is an action upon a contract, brought by the defendants in error to recover an instalment of money due by its terms. A judgment in their favor was sustained by the Supreme Court of the State, although the petition in error to that court set up that the contract was illegal under the act of Congress of July 2, 1890, c. 647, 26 Stat. 209. No opinion was delivered, but a certificate that this objection was relied upon and that it necessarily was considered was made part of the record by that court. Therefore the present writ of error properly was allowed. The record shows that the question…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- United States v. Trans-Missouri Freight Assn.Supreme Court of the United States · 1897
- Bement v. National Harrow Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1902
- Oregon Steam Navigation Co. v. WinsorSupreme Court of the United States · 1874
- Hanley v. Kansas City Southern Railway Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1903
- Farmers' & Merchants' Insurance v. DobneySupreme Court of the United States · 1903
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by62 opinions
- Standard Oil Company of New Jersey, Appts. v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1910
- Whitney v. CaliforniaSupreme Court of the United States · 1927
- Associated Press v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1945
- Willner v. Committee on Character and Fitness, Appellate Div. of Supreme Court of NY, First Judicial Dept.Supreme Court of the United States · 1963
- Kelly v. KosugaSupreme Court of the United States · 1959
57 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.