· 3/22/1897

United States v. Trans-Missouri Freight Assn.

Citations

166 U.S. 290
17 S. Ct. 540
41 L. Ed. 1007
1897 U.S. LEXIS 2025

Syllabus

The dissolution of the freight association does not prevent this court from taking cognizance of the appeal and deciding the case on its merits; as, where parties have entered into an illegal agreement and are acting under it, and there is no adequate remedy at law, and the jurisdiction of the court has attached by the filing of a bill to restrain such or like action under a similar agreement, and a trial has been had and judgment entered, the appellate jurisdiction of this court is not ousted by a simple dissolution of the association, effected subsequently to the entry of judgment in the suit. While the statutory amount must as a matter of fact be in controversy, yet the fact that it is so need not appear in the bill, but may.be shown to the satisfaction of the court. The provisions respecting contracts, combinations and conspiracies in restraint of trade or commerce among the several States or with foreign ■ countries, contained in the act of July 2, 1890, c. 647, “ to protect trade and commerce against unlawful restraints and monopolies,” apply to and cover common carriers by railroad; and a contract between them in restraint of such trade or commerce is prohibited, even though the contract is entered into between competing railroads, only for the purpose of thereby affecting traffic rates for the transportation of persons and property. The act of February 4, 1887, c. 104, “to regulate commerce,” is not mconsistent with the act of July 2, 1890, as it does not confer upon competing railroad companies power to enter into a contract in restraint of trade and commerce, like the one which forms the subject of this suit. Debates in Congress are not appropriate sources of information, from which to discover the meaning of the language of a statute passed by that body. The prohibitory provisions of the said act of July 2, 1890, apply to all contracts in restraint of interstate or foreign trade or commerce without exception or limita

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

relying on the government's interest in determining the legality of an agreement though the defendants voluntarily dissolved the association
“Assuming such action to have been legal at the time the agreement was first entered into, the continuation of the agreement, after it has been declared to be illegal, becomes a violation of [law].”
when allegedly illegal trade association dissolved before trial, action for injunction not moot because a similar association might be formed in the future
when allegedly illegal trade association dissolved before trial, action for injunction not moot because a similar association might be formed in the future
“The defendants cannot foreclose [the public’s] rights [under the Sherman Act] by any such action as has been taken in this case.”
dissolution of illegally constituted assembly after judgment is entered does not deprive court of appellate jurisdiction

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Peckham, White, Field, Gray, Shiras, Geay, Shieas

Read full opinion on CourtListener

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.