United States v. Terminal Railroad Assn. of St. Louis
Citations
- 224 U.S. 383
- 32 S. Ct. 507
- 56 L. Ed. 810
- 1912 U.S. LEXIS 2310
Syllabus
<p>Whether the unification of terminals in a railroad center is a permissible facility in aid of interstate commerce, or an illegal combination in restraint thereof, depends upon the intent to be inferred from the extent of the control secured over the instrumentalities which such commerce is compelled to use, the method by which such control has been obtained, and the manner in which it is exercised.</p> <p>The unification of substantially every terminal facility by which the traffic of St. Louis is served is a combination in restraint of interstate trade within the meaning and purposes of the Anti-Trust Act of July 2, 1890, as the same has been construed by this court in Standard Oil Co. v. United States, 221U. S. 1, and United States v. American Tobacco Co., 221 U. S. 106.</p> <p>The history of the unification of the railroad terminal systems in St. Louis in the Terminal Railroad Association shows an intent to destroy the independent existence of the terminal systems previously existing, to. close the door to competition, and to prevent the joint use or control of the terminals by any non-proprietary company.</p> <p>A provision in an agreement for joint use of terminals by non-proprietary companies on equal terms does not render an illegal combination legal where there is no provision by which the non-proprietary companies can enforce their right to such use.</p> <p>Although the proprietary companies of a combination unifying terminals may not use their full power to impede free competition by outside companies, the control may so result in methods inconsistent with freedom of competition as to render it an illegal restraint under the Sherman Act.</p> <p>This court bases its conclusion that the unification of the terminals in St. Louis is an illegal restraint on interstate traffic, and not an aid thereto, largely upon the extraordinary situation at St. Louis and upon the physical and topographical conditions of the locality.</p> <p>A combination of terminal facil
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- holding that an association of railroads that controlled all the terminals in St. Louis could not exclude their competitors from those facilities
- holding that competitors had to be admitted into a combination formed by several railroads that had acquired control of all the passages into and out of St. Louis, passages which were not amenable to duplication
- holding denial of use of all railway bridges and switching yards into and out of St. Louis was an illegal restraint of trade and attempt to monopolize
- permitting access on equal terms for all railroad companies to railroad bottleneck controlled by a subset
- permitting access on equal terms for all railroad companies to railroad bottleneck controlled by a subset
- railway terminal company reorganized to prevent it from abusing its monopoly over rail traffic into St. Louis
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Lueton, Holmes
Read full opinion on CourtListenerSourced 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.