Summary
The Supreme Court considered whether the consolidation and exclusive control of substantially all railroad terminal facilities serving St. Louis violated the Sherman Act. The Court focused on the combination’s control over facilities that interstate railroads were effectively compelled to use and the resulting effects on competition and interstate commerce.
Holdings
- The combination of substantially every terminal facility serving St. Louis violated § 1 because the proprietary railroads exclusively controlled facilities that other railroads were practically compelled to use, thereby restraining interstate commerce.
- The defendants' exclusive ownership and control of the St. Louis terminal gateway constituted an attempt to monopolize interstate commerce passing through that gateway.
- Immediate dissolution was not necessarily required because the unlawful restraint arose from administrative and access conditions that could be eliminated while preserving the public benefits of a unified terminal system.
Questions Presented
- Whether the unification and exclusive control of substantially all terminal facilities serving St. Louis constituted a combination in restraint of interstate commerce under § 1 of the Sherman Act.
- Whether the defendants' control of the terminal gateway constituted an attempt to monopolize interstate commerce under § 2 of the Sherman Act.
- Whether the combination could be preserved through equitable modification requiring nondiscriminatory access and eliminating anticompetitive practices, rather than immediately dissolved.
Disposition
reversed_and_remanded
Cases Cited (15)
- Standard Oil Co. v. United States, 221 U.S. 1 (1911)(applied)
- United States v. American Tobacco Co., 221 U.S. 106 (1911)(applied)
- Northern Securities Co. v. United States, 193 U.S. 197 (1904)(distinguished)
- Hopkins v. United States, 171 U.S. 586 (1898)(cited)
- Loewe v. Lawlor, 208 U.S. 274 (1908)(cited)
- United States v. Trans-Missouri Freight Ass'n, 166 U.S. 290 (1897)(cited)
- United States v. Joint Traffic Ass'n, 171 U.S. 505 (1898)(cited)
- Addyston Pipe & Steel Co. v. United States, 175 U.S. 211 (1899)(cited)
- Anderson v. United States, 171 U.S. 604 (1898)(cited)
- In re Greene, 52 F. 104 (C.C.D.R.I. 1892)(cited)
Showing top 10 of 15.
Cited In (0)
No citing cases on record yet.
Court Document
Open PDFLoading document…