Page:The Green Bag (1889–1914), Volume 23.pdf/515

 Latest Important Cases

479

committed in that part of the premises

Southern Paciﬁc on the minor lines or to suppress a competition in traﬁic which

which were under the control of the land lord, constituted a constructive eviction

was in the aggregate of such small pro portions could not have been the inspi

(Dvett v.

ration of the vast outlay involved in the purchase of the Huntington stock. It

complained of, in so far as they were

Pendleton,

8

Cow.

727).

While we regard the principle stated as

decisive of this case, we are of the opin ion that the failure of the landlord to institute proceedings to remove the ob jectionable tenants itself justiﬁed the de fendant in removing from the premises."

did not amount to a direct and substan

tial restraint of either interstate or

international commerce.

This is not

suﬁicient to bring it within the condem nation of the anti-trust law.”

Judge Adams prefaced his opinion Monopolies.

Sherman Act —- Direct

and Substantial Restraint — Competition

between Railways.

U. S.

The Government's petition to enjoin the Union Paciﬁc from continuing to control the Southern Paciﬁc Rail road Company was dismissed June 24, in the United States Circuit Court of the Eighth District, at St. Louis. Judge Elmer B. Adams wrote the major ity opinion, which was concurred in by Judge Sanborn and former Judge, now Supreme Court Justice, Van Devanter.

Judge William C. Hook wrote a dissent ing opinion. Judge Adams found that the railroad merger, engineered by the late E. H. Harriman and his associates in 1901 and subsequently, did not amount to a direct and substantial restraint of trade,

interstate or international.

"Our con

clusion," the Court said, “is that all

facts of this case considered in their natural reasonable and practical aspect and given their appropriate relative signiﬁcance do not make the Union

Paciﬁca substantial competitor for trans continental business with the Southern Paciﬁc in or prior to the year 1901. We therefore pass to a consideration of

some less important matters relied upon by the Government to establish destruc tion of competition between these com panies. Certainly the desire to appro priate the triﬂing business done by the

with the statement that the Govern ment must prove that the restraint in trade, alleged in the bill, must be sub

stantiated in character as the direct and immediate effect of the combination. The Government, he said, failed to prove

this. Judge Hook, dissenting, said the major ity opinion “so greatly narrows the act

of Congress that very little is left of it when applied to railroads," and that under the tests which the majority opinion was based on "the Union Paciﬁc probably could have lawfully purchased control of all the great railroad systems

in the United States." Self-Incrimination. See Discovery. Unfair Competition.

“Chartreuse"

Case—Trademarks and Trade Names —French Law of Trademarks without

Extra-Territorial Eject.

U. S.

At the time of the expulsion of the religious orders from France, the monks

of Chartreuse ﬂed to Tarragona in Spain, taking with them the secret formula for the manufacture of the cordial which has made the name Chartreuse famous

throughout the world.

The French

liquidator, Lecouturier, endeavored to

duplicate their formula with the aid of skilled chemists, and put an imitation Chartreuse on the market purporting to be identical in character with the monks’ product. The latter, divested of