This historic book may have numerous typos and missing text. Purchasers can download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. Not indexed. Not illustrated. 1910 edition. Excerpt: ...& Co. vs. the same defendant, were actions at law brought to recover damages under Section 7 of the Sherman law. The defendant corporation had been one of the defendants in the Addyston case, which case had resulted, in December, 1899, in a decision of the Supreme Court of the United States to the effect that ...
Read More
This historic book may have numerous typos and missing text. Purchasers can download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. Not indexed. Not illustrated. 1910 edition. Excerpt: ...& Co. vs. the same defendant, were actions at law brought to recover damages under Section 7 of the Sherman law. The defendant corporation had been one of the defendants in the Addyston case, which case had resulted, in December, 1899, in a decision of the Supreme Court of the United States to the effect that those defendants comprised a combination engaged in restraint of interstate commerce in cast-iron pipes. These two cases against the Chattanooga Foundry & Pipe Company were thereupon brought in the United States Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee, and were decided in that tribunal on May 5, 1900, by Judge Clark, who was then the United States District Judge for that district. The declarations in the two cases stated that the plaintiffs therein had purchased large quantities of cast-iron pipe from the defendant at unfair and exorbitant prices, which the defendant had been enabled by the Addyston combination to extort. Those declarations therefore prayed judgments for triple damages and costs and attorneys' fees, and claimed that the specific damages which should thus be multiplied by three should be ascertained by deducting what would have been a just and fair price for purchased castiron pipe, from the exorbitant and unfair price which had been extorted by the defendant and paid by the plaintiffs, respectively. The defendants defended by interposing a Tennessee statute of limitations, which provided that no action at law for injuries to real or personal property could be brought in the courts of that state more than three years after the injuries occurred. The plaintiffs demurred to this defense on the ground that the Tennessee Statute of Limitations was not applicable to an action based on the Sherman law and brought in a United...
Read Less
