The agreements between British, German, and American steamship
companies which were assailed as contrary to the Anti-Trust Act of
July 2, 1890, having necessarily been dissolved by the European
war, and the questions raised by the bills having thereby become
moot when the decrees of the court below were entered, the decrees
are reversed and the cases remanded with directions to dismiss the
bills without prejudice, as in
United States v.
Hamburg-American Co., 239 U. S. 466.
220 F. 230 reversed.
The case is stated in the opinion.
Memorandum opinion by MR. CHIEF JUSTICE WHITE, by direction of
the court:
The United States sued to restrain the carrying out of
agreements between British, German, and American steamship
Page 242 U. S. 538
companies who were defendants on the ground that they were in
violation of the Anti-Trust Act of July 2, 1890, c. 647, 26 Stat.
209. Overruling the contention that that act did not relate to
contracts concerning ocean carriage, the court entered decrees
against the United States in both cases, dismissing the bills for
want of equity on the ground that the assailed agreements were not
in conflict with the Anti-Trust Act except as to a particular
discrimination found to have been practiced in one of the cases
which was provided against. 220 F. 230. At the time this action was
taken by the court below, as the result of the European War, the
assailed agreements had been dissolved and the questions raised by
the bills were therefore purely moot, as directly decided to be the
case as to a similar situation in
United States v. Hamburg
Amerikanische Packetfahrt-Actien Gesellschaft, 239 U.
S. 466.
Under these circumstances, the request now made by the United
States that the doctrine announced in the
Hamburg-Amerikanische case be applied to both of these
cases, and the relief afforded in that case be awarded, is well
founded and must be granted. It follows, therefore, that the
decrees below must be reversed and the cases be remanded to the
court below with directions to dismiss the bills without prejudice
to the right of the United States in the future to assail any
actual contract or combination deemed to offend against the
Antitrust Act.
And it is so ordered.
