UNITED STATES V. AMERICAN LINSEED OIL CO., 262 U. S. 371 (1923)
Subscribe to Cases that cite 262 U. S. 371
Case Resources
Search this Case
in Google Scholar
on the Web
Google Web Search
MSN Web Search
Yahoo! Web Search
in the News
Google News Search
Google News Archive Search
Yahoo! News Search
in the Blogs
BlawgSearch.com Search
Google Blog Search
Technorati Blog Search
in other Databases
Google Book Search
Online Research Resources
Cornell LII
Cornell Wex Dictionary & Encyclopedia
LLRX.com - Legal Research
Expert Witness Directory
Nolo Consumer & Business
US Court Forms
USA Constitution Annotated
WashLaw Directory
World LII
Online Case Law
Cornell LII
FastCase $
Lexis $
LexisOne
Loislaw $
USSCPlus.com $
VersusLaw $
Link to the Case Preview: http://supreme.justia.com/us/262/371/
Link to the Full Text of Case: http://supreme.justia.com/us/262/371/case.html
U.S. Supreme Court
United States v. American Linseed Oil Co., 262 U.S. 371 (1923)
United States v. American Linseed Oil Company
No. 307
Argued April 25, 26, 1923
Decided June 4, 1923
262 U.S. 371
Syllabus
For the avowed purpose of substituting so-called "open competition" for the normal competition theretofore prevailing between them, but really to defeat the Sherman Anti-Trust Act without subjecting themselves to its penalties, large manufacturers of linseed oil, oil cake, and linseed meal subscribed to an agreement with a central agency which required each of the subscribers: to reveal to the agency, promptly and periodically, intimate details of its business for transmission to the others; to subject itself to autocratic powers vested in the agency; to pay large fees to the agency and make it pecuniary deposits forfeitable for infractions of the agreement; to furnish schedules of prices and terms of sale and adhere to them (unless more onerous ones were obtained), until prepared to give immediate notice of departure therefrom for relay by the agency to the other subscribers; to be represented at monthly meetings and report upon matters of interest to be there discussed, and to comply with all reasonable requirements of the agency, and divulge no secrets. Held that the necessary effect of the combination, viewed in the light of what was done under it, was to suppress competition in violation of the Sherman Act. P. 262 U. S. 388. American Column & Lumber Co. v. United States, 257 U. S. 377.
275 F.9d 9 reversed.
Appeal from a decree of the district court dismissing a bill for an injunction brought under the Sherman Act.