Buckeye Powder Co. v. Hazard Powder Co.
District Court, D. Connecticut
At Raw. Action by the Buckeye Powder Company against the Haz- . ard Powder Company. On motion to compel a witness, whose testi- . mony was being taken by deposition de bene esse, to answer certain questions.
1Opinion of the Court
WARD, Circuit Judge.
The complaint alleges that the E. I. Dupont De Nemours Company formed-a combination of various powder makers, including the defendant, to monopolize the interstate business in powder and other explosives, which combination finally and deliberately destroyed the plaintiff’s business September 19, 1908. Threefold *829damages are claimed under section 7 of the Sherman Act, amounting to $3,000,000.
The plaintiff has brought a similar action in the district of New Jersey against the E. I. Dupont De Nemours Company and other corporations, charged as co-conspirators, including the…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Blease v. GarlingtonSupreme Court of the United States · 1876
- In re NachmanDistrict Court, D. South Carolina · 1902
3Cited by10 opinions
- Murphy v. Waterfront Commission of New York HarborSupreme Court of the United States · 1964
- Rogers v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1951
- United States v. St. PierreCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1942
- United States v. ShibleyDistrict Court, S.D. California · 1953
- In Re MuddUnited States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Texas · 1989
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.