United States v. Yellow Cab Company (338 U.S. 338)/Dissent Black
Mr. Justice BLACK, with whom Mr. Justice REED, concurs, dissenting.

The evidence showed here without dispute that a manufacturer of taxicabs through a series of stock purchases obtained 62% of the stock of a corporation which itself had large stock interests in local companies operating taxicabs. The man who was president, general manager, director, and dominant stockholder in the taxicab manufacturing company also held an important managerial position in the corporate network that carried on the business of the local taxicab operating companies.  The findings of the District Court were that the affiliated ownership, management and control were not the result of any deliberate or calculated purpose of the manufacturing company to control the operating companies' purchases of taxicabs, and that no compulsion had been exercised to control such purchases. Consequently the trial court held that despite the integration of corporate management there was no violation of the Sherman Act. I think that the trial court erred in holding that a formed intent to suppress competition is an indispensable element of violations of the Sherman Act.

In United States v. Griffith, 334 U.S. 100, 105, 106, 68 S.Ct. 941, 944, 92 L.Ed. 1236, we said: 'It is, however, not always necessary to find a specific intent to restrain trade or to build a monopoly in order to find that the anti-trust laws have been violated. It is sufficient that a restraint of trade or monopoly results as the consequence of a defendant's conduct or business arrangements. United States v. Patten, 226 U.S. 525, 543, 33 S.Ct. 141, 145, 57 L.Ed. 333, 44 L.R.A.,N.S., 325; United States v. Masonite Corp., 316 U.S. 265, 275, 62 S.Ct. 1070, 1076, 86 L.Ed. 1461. To require a greater showing would cripple the Act. * * * (E)ven if we accept the District Court's findings that appellees had no intent or purpose unreasonably to restrain trade or to monopolize, we are left with the question whether a necessary and direct result of the master agreements was the restraining or monopolizing of trade within the meaning of the Sherman Act.'

Measured by this test the findings of the trial court here fail to support its legal conclusions that no violation of the Sherman Act had been proven. Since the trial court went on the assumption that subjective intent to suppress competition is an essential ingredient of Sherman law violations, it did not make specific findings as to whether the freedom of the taxicab companies to buy taxicabs from other manufacturers had been hobbled by the defendants' business arrangements, regardless of compulsion or intent to destroy competition. There was much evidence tending to show this hobbling of competition. I think that the allegations of the complaint were sufficiently broad to present this issue for adjudication by the court. Moreover, presentation of the issue was emphasized by the fact that a large amount of evidence to prove successful accomplishment of monopoly or restraints of trade was admitted without any objection by the defendants based on variance from the pleadings. See Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(b).

There is evidence in the record to the effect that as a result of the corporate arrangements here the manufacturing company obtained sufficient power to dictate the terms of purchases by the local companies; there is also evidence that those companies did thereafter limit their purchases of taxicabs almost exclusively to those sold by the manufacturing defendant. Moreover, the evidence shows that such taxicabs were in some instances bought by the local company at prices above those paid by other taxicab companies wholly free to buy taxicabs in a competitive market. This evidence, if accepted, would support a finding of illegal restraint of trade or monopoly under the Griffith rule. I think the cause should be remanded for the trial court to consider the evidence and make findings on this aspect of the case. 

Notes