Continental Wall Paper Co. v. Louis Voight & Sons Co.
Supreme Court of the United States
CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT. The facts appear in the statement of Mr. Justice Harlan. Assuming, but not conceding, that the organization of the plaintiff was for the purpose of restraining competition, and enhancing prices, the defendants have no defense, under common-law considerations, to the action brought against them to recover for goods sold and- delivered.
Read the full summary
CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT. The facts appear in the statement of Mr. Justice Harlan. Assuming, but not conceding, that the organization of the plaintiff was for the purpose of restraining competition, and enhancing prices, the defendants have no defense, under common-law considerations, to the action brought against them to recover for goods sold and- delivered. The illegality of the acts of plaintiff, even if proved, do not' absolve the defendants from the legal obligation to pay for goods admittedly bought by them. “A person does not…
1Opinion of the CourtJustice Hablan
made the following statement of facts.
The Continental Wall Paper Company, a corporation of New York brought this action against The Lewis Voight & Sons Company, a corporation of Ohio, to recover the sum. of $56,762.10, as the alleged balance on an account for merchandise sold and delivered to the defendant.
The petition and answer were both amended. The amended answer contained six separate defenses, the last three of whieh were made counterclaims and cross-petitions. The plaintiff demurred to the second, third, fourth and fifth defenses upon the ground that neither of them stated facts…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- Swift & Co. v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1905
- Addyston Pipe & Steel Co. v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1899
- Connolly v. Union Sewer Pipe Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1902
- McMullen v. HoffmanSupreme Court of the United States · 1899
- Loewe v. LawlorSupreme Court of the United States · 1908
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by263 opinions
- Kaiser Aluminum & Chemical Sales, Inc. v. Avondale Shipyards, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1982
- Kaiser Steel Corp. v. MullinsSupreme Court of the United States · 1982
- Sola Electric Co. v. Jefferson Electric Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1942
- Kelly v. KosugaSupreme Court of the United States · 1959
- Bruce's Juices, Inc. v. American Can Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1947
258 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.