nal proceeding before the commission has been denied. A petition for a rehearing of an application by the carrier to which he was not a party will not justify the review of an order upon the suit of a shipper.46

§ 151a. Bills under the Anti-Trust Laws. The Clayton Act of October 15, 1914, provides: "Antitrust laws,' as used herein, includes the Act entitled 'An Act to protect trade and commerce against unlawful restraints and monopolies,' approved July second, eighteen hundred and ninety; sections seventy-three to seventy-seven, inclusive, of an Act entitled 'An Act to reduce taxation, to provide revenue for the Government, and for other purposes,' of August twenty-seventh, eighteen hundred and ninety-four; an Act entitled 'An Act to amend sections seventythree and seventy-six of the Act of August twenty-seventh, eighteen hundred and ninety-four, entitled 'An Act to reduce taxation, to provide revenue for the Government and for other purposes,' approved February twelfth, nineteen hundred and thirteen; and also this Act.

666

'Commerce,' as used herein, means trade or commerce among the several states and with foreign nations, or between the District of Columbia or any Territory of the United States and any State, Territory, or foreign nation or between any insular possessions or other places under the jurisdiction of the United States, or between any such possession or place and any State or Territory of the United States or the District of Columbia or any foreign nation, or within the District of Columbia or any Territory or any insular possession or other place under the jurisdiction of the United States: Provided, that nothing in this Act contained shall apply to the Philippine Islands.

"The word 'person' or 'persons' wherever used in this Act shall be deemed to include corporations and associations existing under or authorized by the laws of either the United States, the laws of any of the Territories, the laws of any State, or the laws of any foreign country."1

"The labor of a human being is not a commodity or article of commerce. Nothing contained in the antitrust laws shall be con

46 United States v. Merchants & Mfgr's Traffic Ass'n, 242 U. S. 178. § 151a. 1 Act of October 15,

1914, ch. 323, § 1, 38 St. at L. 730, Comp. St. § 8835a.

strued to forbid the existence and operation of labor, agricultural, or horticultural organizations, instituted for the purposes of mutual help, and not having capital stock or conducted for profit, or to forbid or restrain individual members of such organizations from lawfully carrying out the legitimate objects thereof; nor shall such organizations, or the members thereof, be held or construed to be illegal combinations or conspiracies in restraint of trade, under the antitrust laws."' 2

By the Act of July 2, 1890, "Every person who shall monopolize, or attempt to monopolize, or combine or conspire with any other person or persons, to monopolize any part of the trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and, on conviction thereof, shall be punished by fine not exceeding five thousand dollars, or by imprisonment not exceeding one year, or by both said punishments, in the discretion of the court. '' 3

"Every contract, combination in form or trust or otherwise, or conspiracy, in restraint of trade or commerce in any Territory of the United States or of the District of Columbia, or in restraint of trade or commerce between any such Territory and another, or between any such Territory or Territories and any State or States or the District of Columbia, or with foreign nations, or between the District of Columbia and any State or States or foreign nations, is hereby declared illegal. Every

2 Act of October 15, 1914, ch. 323, $ 6, 38 St. at L. 731, Comp. St. § 8835f.

3 Act of July 2, 1890, ch. 647, § 2, 36 St. at L. 209, Comp. St. § 8821.

4 U. S. v. E. C. Knight Co., 156 U. S. 1, 39 L. ed. 325; U. S. v. Trans-Missouri Freight Ass'n, 166 U. S. 290, 319, 41 L. ed. 1007; U. S. v. Joint Traffic Ass'n, 171 U. S. 505, 43 L. ed. 259; Hopkins v. U. S., 171 U. S. 578, 586, 43 L. ed. 290, 293; Anderson v. U. S., 171 U. S. 604, 43 L. ed. 300; Addyston Pipe & Steel Co. v. U. S., 175 U. S. 211, 44 L. ed. 136; affirming U. S. v. Addyston Pipe & Steel Co., C. C. A., 46 L.R.A. 122, 85 Fed. 271; Montague

& Co. v. Lowry, 193 U. S. 38, 48 L. ed. 608; Northern Securities Co. v. U. S., 193 U. S. 197, 48 L. ed. 679; Minnesota v. Northern Securities Co., 194 U. S. 48, 48 L. ed. 870; Swift & Co. v. U. S., 196 U. S. 375, 49 L. ed. 518; Loewe v. Lawler, 208 U. S. 274, 52 L. ed. 488; Shawnee Compress Co. v. Anderson, 209 U. S. 423, 52 L. ed. 865; Continental Wall Paper Co. v. Voight & Sons Co., 212 U. S. 227, 53 L. ed. 486; Standard Oil Co. v. U. S., 221 U. S. 1, 55 L. ed. 619, 34 L.R.A. (N.S.) 834; U. S. v. Am. Tobacco Co., 221 U. S. 106, 55 L. ed. 663; U. S. v. Terminal R. R. Ass'n of St. Louis, 224 U. S. 383, 56 L. ed. 810; Stand

person who shall make any such contract or engage in any such combination or conspiracy, shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and, on conviction thereof, shall be punished by fine not exceeding five thousand dollars, or by imprisonment not exceeding one year, or by both said punishments, in the discretion of the court."5

By the Act of February 12, 1913: "Every combination, conspiracy, trust, agreement, or contract is hereby declared to be contrary to public policy, illegal, and void when the same is made by or between two or more persons or corporations either of whom, as agent or principal, is engaged in importing any article from any foreign country into the United States, and when such combination, conspiracy, trust, agreement, or contract is intended to operate in restraint of lawful trade, or free competition in lawful trade or commerce, or to increase the market price in any part of the United States of any article or articles imported or intended to be imported into the United States, or of any manufacture into which such imported

ard Sanitary Mfg. Co. v. U. S., 226 U. S. 20, 57 L. ed. ; U. S. v. Union Pac. R. R. Co., 226 U. S. 61, 57 L. ed. 53; s. c., 226 U. S. 470, 57 L. ed. 90; U. S. v. Union Stock Yard Co. of Chicago, 226 U. S. 286, 57 L. ed. -; U. S. v. Patten, 226 U. S. 525, 57 L. ed.; U. S. v. Jellico Mountain Coke & Coal Co., 43 Fed. 898; s. c., 12 L.R.A. 753, 46 Fed. 432; Bigelow v. Calumet & Hecla Min. Co., 155 Fed. 869. See U. S. v. Delaware & Hudson Co., 213 U. S. 366, 53 L. ed. 836; U. S. v. Lehigh Valley R. R. Co., 220 U. S. 257, 55 L. ed. 458; U. S. v. Reading Co., 226 U. S. 324, 57 L. ed. 90; American Biscuit & Mfg. Co. v. Klitz, 44 Fed. 721, 725, 726. U. S. v. Joint Traffic Ass'n, 171 U. S. 505, 43 L. ed. 259; Addyston Pipe & Steel Co. v. U. S., 175 U. S. 211, 44 L. ed. 136; Montague & Co. v. Lowry, 193 U. S. 38, 48 L. ed. 608; Northern Securities Co. v. U. S., 193 U. S. 197, 48 L. ed. 679; Minnesota v. Northern Securi

ties Co., 194 U. S. 48, 48 L. ed. 870; Swift & Co. v. U. S., 196 U. S. 375, 49 L. ed. 518; Loewe v. Lawlor, 208 U. S. 274, 52 L. ed. 488; ShawLee Compress Co. v. Anderson, 209 U. S. 423, 52 L. ed. 865; Continental Wall Paper Co. v. Voight & Sons Co., 212 U. S. 227, 53 L. ed. 486; U. S. v. Lehigh Valley R. R. Co. 220 U. S. 257, 55 L. ed. 458; Standard Oil Co. v. U. S., 221 U. S. 1, 55 L. ed. 619, 34 L.R.A. (N.S.) 834; U. S. v. Am. Tobacco Co., 221 U. S. 106, 55 L. ed. 663; U. S. v. Union Pac. R. R. Co., 226 U. S. 61, 57 L. ed. 53; s. c., 226 U. S. 470, 57 L. ed. 90; U. S. v. Patten, 226 U. S. 525, 57 L. ed. -; U. S. v. Reading Co., 226 U. S. 324, 57 L. ed. 90; U. S. v. Jellico Mountain Coke & Coal Co., 43 Fed. 898; s. c., 12 L.R.A. 753, 46 Fed. 432; Bigelow v. Calumet & Hecla Min. Co., 155 Fed. 869. See American Biscuit & Mfg. Co. v. Klitz, 44 Fed. 721, 725, 726.

5 Act of July 2, 1890, ch. 647, § 3, 26 St. at L. 209, Comp. St. § 8822.

article enters or is intended to enter. Every person who is or shall hereafter be engaged in the importation of goods or any commodity from any foreign country in violation of this section of this Act, or who shall combine or conspire with another to violate the same, is guilty of a misdemeanor, and on conviction thereof in any court of the United States such person shall be fined in a sum not less than one hundred dollars and not exceeding five thousand dollars, and shall be further punished by imprisonment, in the discretion of the court, for a term not less than three months nor exceeding twelve months."6

By the Clayton Act: "Any person who shall be injured in his business or property by reason of anything forbidden in the antitrust laws may sue therefor in any district court of the United States in the district in which the defendant resides or is found or has an agent, without respect to the amount in controversy, and shall recover threefold the damages by him sustained, and the cost of suit, including a reasonable attorney's fee." Such an action must be brought at common law.8 When brought by a stockholder it must be in equity, but it has been said that treble damages cannot be recovered in a stockholder's suit.10 The complainant must show that the plaintiff was injured by reason of a contract or combination in restraint of trade in violation of the act.11 A complaint was held to state no cause of action where it alleged that "the bank of which plaintiff was the receiver entered into agreements with two other banking companies, whereby the three formed a combination to control the

6 Act of August 27, 1894, 28 St. at L. 570, ch. 349, § 73, as amended, 37 St. at L. 667, ch. 40, Comp. St. § 8831.

738 St. at L. 731, ch. 323, § 4, Comp. St. § 8835d. Supra, § 61.

By the act of August 27, 1894, 'Any person who shall be injured in his business or property by any other person or corporation by reason of anything forbidden or declared to be unlawful by this Act may sue therefor in any circuit court of the United States in the district in which the defendant resides or is found, without respect to the amount in controversy, and shall re

banking business at a particular point, that the corporation of which he was the receiver and another of the three acquired the stock of the third, and that ultimately the first, of which plaintiff was receiver, was absorbed by the second corporation. The complaint alleged as elements of damage the amount paid by the second bank to the stockholders of the first bank, of which he was receiver, which was in excess of the actual value of the stock, on the theory that the bank was deprived of some right, and as other items of damage alleged that it ultimately became insolvent;" that his corporation which previously had a surplus of $110,000 above its liabilities to creditors, became insolvent so that its assets were reduced to more than $500,000 below such liabilities.12 Construing the pleadings, the court cannot take judicial notice of decisions in the State courts in actions by other plaintiffs to which the defendant was a party.18

By the Clayton Act: "The several circuit courts of the United States are hereby invested with jurisdiction to prevent and restrain violations of § 73 of this Act; and it shall be the duty of the several district attorneys of the United States, in their respective districts, under the direction of the Attorney General, to institute proceedings in equity to prevent and restrain such violations. Such proceedings may be by way of petition setting forth the case and praying that such violations shall be enjoined or otherwise prohibited. When the parties complained of shall have

12 Noyes v. Parsens, C. C. A., 245 Fed. 689; Homestead Co. v. Des Moines Electric Co., C. C. A., 248 Fed. 439, held that: "the complaint states facts sufficient to sustain an action in tort for damages under the statute. It sufficiently states like contemporaneous services to the job printing and photoengraving plants of the two competitors, and like business situation and circumstances of the competitors and of their plants, and the charge and collection from one of rates 21⁄2 times the rates collected of the other, avers that this discrimination compelled the plaintiff to pay for substantially like service $2,950.46 more than it would

have paid at the rates charged the Leader Company, that on account of its competitive relation with that Company it was compelled to sell the product of its job printing and photo-engraving business at the prices set by the Leader Company, and that, 'its overhead expenses being unduly increased by the unfair requirements of defendant, plaintiff was deprived of its fair and legitimate profit and damaged to the extent of said overcharge.' The complaint then ' demands damages against defendant for the sum of $2,950.46 actual damages with interest thereon.'"

13 Strout v. United Shoe Mach. Co., 208 Fed. 646, 653.