D. R. Wilder Manufacturing Co. v. Corn Products Refining Co.

Citations

• 236 U.S. 165
• 35 S. Ct. 398
• 59 L. Ed. 520
• 1915 U.S. LEXIS 1746

Syllabus

<p>Where the pleading of the plaintiff in error demurred to justified the inference that the transaction alleged to be in violation of the AntiTrust Act was interstate, the court may assume that such was the case, and, if the decision turns on the construction of the act, a Federal question is involved.</p> <p>The general rule is that one who has dealt with .a corporation as an existing concern having capacity to sell, cannot assert, or escape liability, on the ground that such concern has no legal existence because it is an unlawful combination in violation of the Anti-Trust Act. Such a defense is a mere collateral attack on the organization of the corporation which cannot lawfully be made. Connolly v. Union Sewer. Pipe Co., 1§4 U. S. 540.</p> <p>Courts may not refuse to enforce an otherwise legal contract because it might afford some indirect benefit to a wrongdoer.</p> <p>The contract in this case held not to be intrinsically illegal because the seller agreed to give a portion of its profits to the purchaser of goods provided such purchaser dealt exclusively with the seller for a specified period and also bought the goods exclusively for purchaser’s own use; and also held that such contract was not-illegal under the AntiTrust Act. Continental Wall Paper Co. v. Voight, 212 U. S. 227, distinguished.</p> <p>The Anti-Trust Act is founded on broad conceptions of public policy and its prohibitions were enacted not only to prevent injury to the individual but harm to the general public, and its prohibitions and the remedies it provides are co-extensive with such conceptions.</p> <p>Where a statute creates a new offense and denounces the penalty, or gives a new right and declares the remedy, the punishment or remedy given can be only that which the statute prescribes.</p> <p>The power given by the Anti-Trust Act to the Attorney General to dissolve a corporation or combination as violative of that act is in- . consistent with the right of an individual to assert as a defe