Local 167, Int’l Brotherhood of Teamsters v. United States, 291 U.S. 293 (1934)

Local 167, International Brotherhood

of Teamsters v. United States
No. 6

Argued January 17, 18, 1934
Decided February 5, 1934
291 U.S. 293

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

1. Failure to comply with 28 U.S.C. § 862 and Rule 9 in respect of assignment of errors may be taken as sufficient ground for dismissal. P. 296.

2. Control of the handling, sales and prices of commodities at the place of origin before their interstate journey begins, or in the destination where the interstate movement ends, may operate directly to restrain and monopolize interstate commerce. P. 297.

3. The Sherman Act denounces every conspiracy in restraint of interstate trade, including those that are to be carried on by acts constituting intrastate transactions. P. 297.

4. In the presence of evidence of a highly organized scheme and conspiracy, maintained by the levy, collection, and expenditure of enormous sums, for the purpose of dominating a great and permanent business, the defense of abandonment requires definite proof -- abandonment cannot be presumed. P. 297.

5. The silence of defendants whom the evidence tends to implicate and who were present at the taking of the testimony is evidence of the persistence of the conspiracy and of their participation in it. P. 298.

6. In a suit under the Sherman Act to enjoin a conspiracy, parties who have been convicted in a criminal prosecution for the same conspiracy are estopped to deny their connection with it before the indictment. P. 298.

7. A decree of injunction under the Sherman Law should enjoin acts of the sort that are shown by the evidence to have been done or threatened in furtherance of the conspiracy; it should be broad enough to prevent evasion, and doubts as to the scope of its prohibitions should be resolved in favor of the Government and against the conspirators. P. 299.

8. Intrastate acts will be enjoined whenever necessary or appropriate for the protection of interstate commerce against any restraint denounced by the statute. P. 299.

Affirmed.

Appeal from a decree of injunction under the Sherman Antitrust Act. For opinions of the District Court in connection with some of the interlocutory rulings, see 44 F.2d 393 and 53 F.2d 518.