United States v. United Shoe Machinery Company of New Jersey
Restored to Docket for Reargument May 21, 1917.

Reargued Jan. 11, 14, and 15, 1918.

Decided May 20, 1918.

Suit to dissolve an asserted combination and conspiracy between certain companies, makers or dealers in boot and shoe machinery, and the officers of the companies; also to have declared illegal and canceled certain leases and agreements, charged to be the means of the combination and conspiracy whereby, through control over the manufacturers of boots and shoes, competition has been prevented, inventive genius subjected to the designs of the combiners and conspirators, and auxiliary machines and accessories controlled and made subsidiary.

The charges are met with denials, with justification that the conduct which is asserted to be illegal was in promotion of trade, in natural development of business and in strict compliance with modern trade progress; indeed, that there was simply the fusion of independent and noncompeting businesses, each differing from the other, and the combination of various elements of machinery covered by United States patents and all of it relating to the same art and the same school of manufactures. And that the leases and agreements were but the exercise of patent rights, wholly legal and indeed necessary.

These contentions are displayed in a bill which occupies 46 pages of the record and an answer of equal volume.

The statute of limitations is also pleaded in defense, the greater part of the acts charged being alleged to have taken place more than six years before the filing of the petition.

Three judges sat in the case, who heard the testimony in open court. Upon its completion and consideration a decree was entered dismissing the bill. Each judge rendered an opinion exhibiting the case from a different angle, and the opinions, taken together, display all the phases of the case and the considerations and issues involved, (D. C.) 222 Fed. 349.

Mr. H. La Rue Brown, of Boston, Mass., for the United States.

Messrs. Charles F. Choate, Jr., and Frederick P. Fish, both of Boston, Mass., for appellees.

Mr. Justice McKENNA, after stating the case as above, delivered the opinion of the Court. 

Notes
Uncategorized United States Supreme Court decision