Murray v. Buell
Wisconsin Supreme Court
APPEAL from the Circuit Court for Waukesha County. The facts are sufficiently stated in the opinion. They cited 1 Suth. on Damages, 810, and cases cited; 5 Am. & Eng. Ency. of Law, 54; 3 Suth. on Damages, 385-387; Hoposkey v. Munkwitz, 68 Wis. 322; Brown v. C., M. & St. P. R. Co. 54 id. 342; Shepard v. Milwaukee G. I. Go. 15 id. 318; Chicago 'v. Smith, 48 Ill. 107.
1Opinion of the CourtOrton, J.
The main facts stated in the complaint are substantially as follows: During the season of 1886 the defendants and others (except the defendant MeGarigle), who were engaged in the business of selling coal in the city of Milwaukee, conspired and formed an association for the purpose of controlling and monopolizing the entire sale of coal in said city and preventing competition therein, and of fixing uniform prices at which the various kinds of coal should be sold in said city, and of preventing all dealers in coal in said city from selling coal at less rates than the price so fixed. The…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Baker v. City of MadisonWisconsin Supreme Court · 1885
- Schultz v. Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Railway Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1880
- Corcoran v. HarranWisconsin Supreme Court · 1882
- McLimans v. City of LancasterWisconsin Supreme Court · 1885
- West v. Milwaukee, Lake Shore & Western Railway Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1882
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by38 opinions
- State v. FerrantoOhio Supreme Court · 1925
- Herndon v. HerndonSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1981
- Castlewood International Corporation v. LaFleurSupreme Court of Florida · 1975
- People v. PfanschmidtIllinois Supreme Court · 1914
- Saucedo v. WingerSupreme Court of Kansas · 1993
33 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.