Continental Wall Paper Co. v. Lewis Voight & Sons Co.
Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
In Error to the Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern District of Ohio. This is-an action to recover a balance of 857,762.10, duo on account for wall paper sold and delivered to defendants. The case turned upon the sufficiency of the third defense submitted by the answer to the petition of the plaintiff. To this defense the plaintiff demurred. This demurrer was overruled.
Read the full summary
In Error to the Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern District of Ohio. This is-an action to recover a balance of 857,762.10, duo on account for wall paper sold and delivered to defendants. The case turned upon the sufficiency of the third defense submitted by the answer to the petition of the plaintiff. To this defense the plaintiff demurred. This demurrer was overruled. The plaintiff declined to plead further, whereupon judgment was rendered for the defendants, dismissing the petition, and taxing the plaintiff with costs. The defense so held to be sufficient was in substance:…
1Opinion of the CourtLurton, Circuit Judge
It has been urged that the defense to the claim in suit must fail upon either, of two grounds: First, that the contract between the plaintiff corporation and the manufacturers of wall p^per does not contain any stipulations beyond those admissible and essential to protect the contracting parties in securing reasonable prices and against unreasonable and demoralizing competition; second, that if it be conceded that the agreement does constitute an unlawful combination in restraint of interstate trade and commerce, that that fact affords no defense to a suit for the price of goods sold and…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- United States v. Trans-Missouri Freight Assn.Supreme Court of the United States · 1897
- Northern Securities Co. v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1904
- Connolly v. Union Sewer Pipe Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1902
- McMullen v. HoffmanSupreme Court of the United States · 1899
- United States v. Joint Traffic Assn.Supreme Court of the United States · 1898
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by16 opinions
- John D. Park & Sons Co. v. HartmanCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1907
- Knight & Jillson Co. v. MillerIndiana Supreme Court · 1909
- State v. Duluth Board of TradeSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1909
- Julius Mullins v. Kaiser Steel CorporationCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1981
- Bigelow v. Calumet & Hecla Mining Co.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1909
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.