Fleitmann v. United Gas Improvement Co.

Second Circuit

Fleitmann v. United Gas Improvement Co.

211 F. 103, 128 C.C.A. 31, 1914 U.S. App. LEXIS 1722

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit

DecidedJanuary 13, 1914

DocketNos. 92, 93

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 211 F. 103 (Fleitmann v. United Gas Improvement Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Fleitmann v. United Gas Improvement Co., 211 F. 103, 128 C.C.A. 31, 1914 U.S. App. LEXIS 1722 (2d Cir. 1914).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The opinion of Judge Coxe, sitting in the District Court, which sufficiently sets forth the allegations of the bills and in which we concur, will be found above.

[1] We are clearly of the opinion that an action to recover treble damages under section 7 of the act must be an action at law, where defendants have the constitutional right to a jury trial.

[2] The sole relief prayed in these bills is that the defendants, other than the Consolidated Company, be decreed to pay over to the Consolidated Company treble the damages it has sustained by .some violation of the Sherman Act.- We find no authority which gives to a court of equity the jurisdiction to make such a decree. There is no prayer for relief which would warrant such a construction of the tíxll as would merely require the Consolidated Company to sue the other defendants for treble damages under the statute.

We think the dismissal was proper, and affirm the decrees, with costs.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

The opinion of Judge Coxe, sitting in the District Court, which sufficiently sets forth the allegations of the bills and in which we concur, will be found above.

[1] We are clearly of the opinion that an action to recover treble damages under section 7 of the act must be an action at law, where defendants have the constitutional right to a jury trial.

[2] The sole relief prayed in these bills is that the defendants, other than the Consolidated Company, be decreed to pay over to the Consolidated Company treble the damages it has sustained by .some violation of the Sherman Act.- We find no authority which gives to a court of equity the jurisdiction to make such a decree. There is no prayer for relief which would warrant such a construction of the tíxll as would merely require the Consolidated Company to sue the other defendants for treble damages under the statute.

We think the dismissal was proper, and affirm the decrees, with costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

211 F. 103, 128 C.C.A. 31, 1914 U.S. App. LEXIS 1722, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fleitmann-v-united-gas-improvement-co-ca2-1914.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack