United States v. American-Asiatic Steamship Co.

242 U.S. 537, 37 S. Ct. 233, 61 L. Ed. 479, 1917 U.S. LEXIS 2154
CourtSupreme Court of the United States
DecidedJanuary 22, 1917
DocketNos. 138 and 169
StatusPublished
Cited by19 cases

This text of 242 U.S. 537 (United States v. American-Asiatic Steamship Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of the United States primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
United States v. American-Asiatic Steamship Co., 242 U.S. 537, 37 S. Ct. 233, 61 L. Ed. 479, 1917 U.S. LEXIS 2154 (1917).

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 steam *538 ship 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 Fed. Rep. 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-American Co., 239 U. S. 466.

Under these circumstances the request now made by the United States that the doctrine announced in the Hamburg-American 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 Anti-Trust Act.

And it is so ordered.

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

Related

Taylor v. Board of Education
294 F.2d 36 (Second Circuit, 1961)
Federal Maritime Board v. Isbrandtsen Co.
356 U.S. 481 (Supreme Court, 1958)
United States v. Logan Co.
147 F. Supp. 330 (W.D. Pennsylvania, 1957)
United States v. Insurance Board of Cleveland
144 F. Supp. 684 (N.D. Ohio, 1956)
Acheson v. Droesse
197 F.2d 574 (D.C. Circuit, 1952)
Acheson, Secretary of State v. Droesse
197 F.2d 574 (D.C. Circuit, 1952)
United States v. Munsingwear, Inc.
340 U.S. 36 (Supreme Court, 1950)
Howard v. Wilbur
166 F.2d 884 (Sixth Circuit, 1948)
Newcomb v. United States
98 F.2d 25 (Ninth Circuit, 1938)
American Mercury, Inc. v. Kiely
19 F.2d 295 (Second Circuit, 1927)
United States v. Chesebrough Mfg. Co.
11 F.2d 537 (S.D. New York, 1926)
State ex rel. Hughes v. Milhollan
195 N.W. 292 (North Dakota Supreme Court, 1923)
Chicago & N. W. Ry. Co. v. Eveland
289 F. 783 (Eighth Circuit, 1923)
Dakota Coal Co. v. Fraser
267 F. 130 (Eighth Circuit, 1920)
Commercial Cable Co. v. Burleson
250 U.S. 360 (Supreme Court, 1919)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
242 U.S. 537, 37 S. Ct. 233, 61 L. Ed. 479, 1917 U.S. LEXIS 2154, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-american-asiatic-steamship-co-scotus-1917.