Connolly v. Union Sewer Pipe Co.
Citations
- 184 U.S. 540
- 22 S. Ct. 431
- 46 L. Ed. 679
- 1902 U.S. LEXIS 2269
Syllabus
<p>If a claim is made in the Circuit Court that a state enactment is invalid under the Constitution of the United States, and that claim is sustained ■ or rejected, this court may review the judgment, at the instance of the unsuccessful party. .</p> <p>If. the alleged combination in this case was illegal, it would not follow that they could, at common law, refuse to pay for pipes bought for them under special contracts. •</p> <p>The contracts between the plaintiff and the respective defendants were collateral to the agreement between the plaintiff and other corporations, etc., whereby an illegal combination was formed for the sale of sewer pipe.</p> <p>The first special defence in this case, based alone upon the principles of the common law, was properly overruled.</p> <p>The special defence, based upon the act of Congress of July 2, 1890, 26 Stat. 209, was also properly rejected. That act does not declare illegal or void any sale made by such combination or its agents of property acquired for the purpose of being sold, such property not being at the time in the course of transportation from one State to another, or to a foreign country; and the buyer could not refuse to comply with his contract of purchase upon the ground that the seller was an illegal combination, which might be restrained or suppressed in the mode prescribed by the act of Congress.</p>
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- explaining that if an unconstitutional section of a statute “is of such import that the other sections without it would cause results not contemplated or desired by the legislature, then the entire statute must be held inoperative”
- the parallel damages provision in the antitrust laws does not allow a buyer of goods to keep them without payment, whether or not the price is monopolistic
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Harlan, McKenna, Gray
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
344 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.
- Texas Industries, Inc. v. Radcliff Materials, Inc.Supreme Court· 1981-05-26· cited 882×
- Kaiser Aluminum & Chemical Sales, Inc. v. Avondale Shipyards, Inc.Fifth Circuit· 1982-06-07· cited 836×
- Muskrat v. United StatesSupreme Court· 1911-02-20· cited 763×
- Truax v. CorriganSupreme Court· 1921-12-19· cited 592×
- Oregon v. MitchellSupreme Court· 1970-12-21· cited 575×
- Morey v. DoudSupreme Court· 1957-06-24· cited 570×
- Tigner v. TexasSupreme Court· 1940-06-03· cited 558×
- Champlin Rfg. Co. v. Corporation Commission of OklahomaSupreme Court· 1932-05-16· cited 528×
- Continental Paper Bag Co. v. Eastern Paper Bag Co.Supreme Court· 1908-06-01· cited 504×
- Smith v. CahoonSupreme Court· 1931-05-25· cited 395×
- Kaiser Steel Corp. v. MullinsSupreme Court· 1982-01-13· cited 394×
- State Bd. of Tax Commr's of Ind. v. JacksonSupreme Court· 1931-05-25· cited 372×
- Dobbins v. Los AngelesSupreme Court· 1904-11-14· cited 361×
- Kelly v. KosugaSupreme Court· 1959-04-06· cited 318×
- Chambers v. Baltimore & Ohio RailroadSupreme Court· 1907-11-18· cited 280×
- Bruce's Juices, Inc. v. American Can Co.Supreme Court· 1947-04-07· cited 267×
- Quong Wing v. KirkendallSupreme Court· 1912-01-22· cited 228×
- Jay Burns Baking Co. v. BryanSupreme Court· 1924-04-21· cited 218×
- Shevlin-Carpenter Co. v. MinnesotaSupreme Court· 1910-05-31· cited 204×
- D. R. Wilder Manufacturing Co. v. Corn Products Refining Co.Supreme Court· 1915-02-23· cited 197×
Cites
21 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.
- Yick Wo v. HopkinsSupreme Court· 1886-05-10· cited 3,789×
- Gibbons v. OgdenSupreme Court· 1824-03-18· cited 2,543×
- Gulf, Colorado & Santa Fé Railway Co. v. EllisSupreme Court· 1897-01-18· cited 580×
- Hayes v. MissouriSupreme Court· 1887-01-17· cited 460×
- Bell's Gap Railroad v. PennsylvaniaSupreme Court· 1890-03-10· cited 449×
- Missouri v. LewisSupreme Court· 1880-04-12· cited 375×
- McMullen v. HoffmanSupreme Court· 1899-05-22· cited 326×
- Gundling v. ChicagoSupreme Court· 1900-04-09· cited 310×
- Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fé Railroad v. MatthewsSupreme Court· 1899-04-17· cited 271×
- Cotting v. Kansas City Stock Yards Co.Supreme Court· 1901-11-25· cited 260×
- Duncan v. MissouriSupreme Court· 1894-03-12· cited 232×
- American Sugar Refining Co. v. LouisianaSupreme Court· 1900-11-05· cited 230×
- Williams v. FearsSupreme Court· 1900-12-10· cited 224×
- Missouri, Kansas & Texas Railway Co. v. HaberSupreme Court· 1898-03-14· cited 191×
- Loeb v. Columbia Township TrusteesSupreme Court· 1900-12-10· cited 149×
- Miller v. AmmonSupreme Court· 1892-05-16· cited 106×
- Petit v. MinnesotaSupreme Court· 1900-04-09· cited 88×
- Stevens v. PrattIllinois Supreme Court· 1881-09-30· cited 39×
- Clause v. Bullock Printing Press Co.Illinois Supreme Court· 1886-11-13· cited 16×
- Hubbard v. RogersIllinois Supreme Court· 1872-09-15· cited 6×
Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.