Page

92

Safety Automatic Toy Co. v. Edwards
Mfg. Co. (C. C. A. Ohio).
Scanlon v. United States (C. C. A. Ohio)..1021
Shelton v. United States (C. C. A. Tenn.) 1021
Springfield Nat. Bank v. American Surety
Co. of New York (C. C. A. Ohio).
Swink v. United States (C. C. A. Tenn.)
United States v. Ali (D. C. Mich.)
United States v. Lecka (D. C. Tenn.)...
Universal Rim Co. v. Firestone Tire &
Rubber Co. (C. C. A. Ohio).
Western Paper Makers' Chemical Co. v.
United States (D. C. Mich.)

44

...1022 728 380

24

164

White v. Weiss (D. C. Ohio).

139

Enochasson v. Freeport Sulphur Co. (D.

C. Tex.)

Wilkin v. Heywood-Wakefield Co. (C. C. A. Mich.).

115

Jordan v. Frederick Leyland & Co. (D. C.

La.)

McLaughlin v. Western Union Tel. Co. (D. C. La.)

Wilson v. United States (C. C. A. Tenn.)..1023 Woodworth v. General Motors Acceptance Corporation (C. C. A. Mich.).

.1023

McNally v. Jackson (D. C. La.).

Managua Nav. Co. V.

Aktieselskabet

Borgestad (C. C. A. La.)

Pelotas, The (D. C. La.)

Pelotas, The (D. C. La.)

of Wisconsin (D. C. Wis.).

924

United States v. Henning (D. C. Ala.)
United States v. Lindsly (D. C. La.).
United States v. Mullen (D. C. La.)
Whitewater Lumber Co., In re (D. C.
Ala.)

488

Chicago Reed & Furniture Co., In re (C.

...

C. A. Ill.).

885

247

244

Frackman Co. v. Lloyd's London, Inc. (D.

C. Ill.)

620

410

143

Joseph Frackman Co. v. Lloyd's London Inc. (D. C. Ill.)

620

Levin v. Johnson (C. C. A. Ill.)

885

Michael v. United States (C. C. A. Ill.). Pattiz v. Semple (D. C. Ill.)

865

618

United States v. Moore (D. C. Ill.).

734

Benham v. United States (C. C. A. Ohio).. 271
Berretta v. United States (C. C. A. Tenn.) 1017
Black v. United States (C. C. A. Tenn.).. 469
Board of Com'rs of Franklin County, Ohio,
v. Davis (C. C. A. Ohio)..
Borderland Coal Sales Co. v. Imperial Coal
Sales Co. (C. C. A. Ohio)
Bryant v. United States (C. C. A. Tenn.) 1017
Budd Mfg. Co. v. C. R. Wilson Body Co.
(D. C. Mich.)

Wickham & Burton Coal Co. v. Minnesota Coal Co. (C. C. A. Ill.).

873

Fidelity & Deposit Co. of Maryland v. Robinson (C. C. A. Idaho).

371

..1020

Lewis v. Kennamer (C. C. A. Okl.) .1020
Mann v. United States (C. C. A. Ókl.). 355
Martin v. United States (C. C. A. Okl.)..1020
Mattson v, United States (C. C. A. Minn.) 427
Minneapolis Electric Lamp Co. v. General
Electric Co. (C. C. A. Minn.)
Missouri Pac. R. Co. v. Higginson, Ken-
sett & Judsonia Road Imp. Dist. (C. C.
A. Ark.)
...1020
Morris v. United States (C. C. A. Ark.).. 785
National Fire Ins. Co. of Hartford, Conn.,
v. Elliott (C. C. A. Mo.).
Nigro v. United States (C. C. A. Mo.).... 553
Page v. Jones (C. C. A. Okl.).
Paine v. Trustees of Macalester College
(D. C. Minn.)

541

Patrilo v. United States (C. C. A. Mo.). 804 Peralta Gold Mines Co. v. Bonanza Development Co. (C. C. A. N. M.) Romine v. Hoffman (C. C. A. Iowa). ..1021 St. Louis-San Francisco R. Co. v. Bledsoe (C. C. A. Okl.)

Fidelity & Deposit Co. of Maryland v. Robinson (C. C. A. Idaho).

372

Filcher v. United States (C. C. A. Mont.) 519 Galbraith v. Kline (D. C. Mont.)

682

G. Amsinck & Co. v. Pacific Mail S. S. Co. (C. C. A. Cal.).

452

522

Holmes v. Henry Jennings & Sons (D. C. Or.)

231

174

1021

364

Seybold v. Lainson (C. C. A. Iowa). Simmons Hardware Co. v. Rhodes (C. C. A. Ark.)

362

Jew Bok v. Nagle (C. C. A. Cal.)
Jonas v. Roberti (C. C. A. Cal.).
Jones & Co. v. United States Shipping
Board Emergency Fleet Corporation (D.
C. Cal.).

372

563

893

352

Smalley v. Auto Specialists, Inc., of Sioux City, Iowa (D. C. Iowa)

710

Smart v. United States (C. C. A. Ókl.)...1022 Spallo v. Jones (C. C. A. Mo.).

Kline v. Murray (D. C. Mont.).

King Coal Co. v. United States (D. C. Cal.)

153

404

.1022

Stanford V. United States (C. C.

A.

Okl.)

Stark v. West Line Rock Co. (C. C.
Mo.)
.1022
Sullivan v. United States (C. C. A. Okl.).. 355
Svarney v. United States (C. C. A. Utah) 515
United States v. Bothwell Co. (D. C. Wyo.) 624
United States v. Hale (C. A. Ark.).... 882
United States Installment Realty Co., In re
(C. C. A. Minn.)

528

Wabash R. Co. v. American Refrigerator
Transit Co. (C. C. A. Mo.).
Wabash R. Co. v. Lane (C. C. A. Mo.)....1023
Wagner v. United States (C. C. A. Neb.)..1023
Weeks v. Goltra (C. C. A. Mo.)

Lee Tung v. United States (C. C. A. Cal.)
Lehman, In re (D. C. Mont.)
Lew Shee v. Nagle (C. C. A. Cal.).
Lineker v. Marshall (C. C. A. Cal.)
Marquam v. Vachon (C. C. A. Alaska)... 607
Martins v. Joseph (D. C. Cal.).
Miller v. Humphrey (C. C. A. Cal.)
Modoc County Bank v. Ringling (C. C. A.
Cal.)

Kurtz v. Portland Electric Power Co. (D. C. Or.)...

221

111

680

367

875

379

330

535

Morlan v. Lucey Mfg. Corporation (D. C.

335

Cal.)

494

Murray v. Sill (C. C. A. Idaho).

589

838

Wyoming Sugar Co. v. Davis (D. C. Wyo.) 622

Nix v. James (C. C. A. Cal.)

590

NINTH CIRCUIT.

American-Hawaiian S. S. Co. v. United States (D. C. Cal.).

Page

United States Southern California Wholesale Grocers' Ass'n (D. C. Cal.).. 944 Vaught v. United States (C. C. A. Cal.). 370 Walker v. United States (C. C. A. Cal.).. 309 Weedin v. Chin Bow (C. C. A. Wash.).... 369 Weedin v. Wong Jun (C. C. A. Wash.).. 311 Wills v. United States (D. C. Mont.).. 137 Wilson v. Elk Coal Co. (C. C. A. Wash.) 112 Wong Fat Shuen v. Nagle (C. C. A. Cal.) 611 Wong Shee v. Nagle (C. C. À. Cal.)

612

W. R. Grace & Co. v. Toyo Kisen Kabushiki Kaisha (D. C. Cal.).

889

....

426

Yip Wah v. Nagle (C. C. A. Cal.).

TILBURY et al. v. OREGON STEVEDORING

CO., Inc., et al.

(Circuit Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. August 3, 1925.)

No. 4542.

Monopolies 12(2)-Complaint held not to allege violation of Sherman Anti-Trust Law or Clayton Act in organizing longshoremen employers' association.

Allegations of illegal combination between ship owners and operators controlling nearly all port's longshore and stevedoring business, that restrictions and interferences were by establishing water front employers' association, establishing a hiring hall, making rules and regulations governing employment and conduct of longshoremen, establishing registration system, fixing and enforcing uniform wages for longshoremen, and limiting employment to favored longshoremen, and refusing to employ any one discharged by other defendants, held not to show impeding of commerce or violation of Sherman Anti-Trust Law (Comp. St. §§ 8820 8823, 8827-8830) or Clayton Act, or that defendants had other purpose than to regulate fairly transaction of their business.

Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the District of Oregon; Charles E. Wolverton, Judge.

Suit by Charles E. Tilbury and another against the Oregon Stevedoring Company, Inc., and others, to restrain defendants from violating the Sherman Anti-Trust Act and for damages under the Clayton Act. From a decree dismissing the complaint, plaintiffs appeal. Affirmed.

Charles H. Carey, James B. Kerr, Charles A. Hart, Omar C. Spencer, and Charles E. McCulloch, all of Portland, Or., for other appellees.

Before GILBERT, HUNT, and RUDKIN, Circuit Judges.

HUNT, Circuit Judge. From a decree entered upon motion to dismiss a complaint in a suit brought to restrain the appellees from violating the Sherman Anti-Trust Act (Comp. St. §§ 8820-8823, 8827-8830), and acts amendatory thereof, and for damages in accordance with the provisions of the Clayton Act (38 Stat. 730), plaintiffs appeal.

The complaint charges that an illegal combination existed among shipowners and operators at the port of Portland, controlling nearly all of the Portland longshore and stevedoring business to and from ships engaged in interstate and foreign transportation; that the restrictions and interferences are by (1) establishing a water front employers' association among themselves as members, with a constitution and by-laws in the form of an unincorporated association; (2) establishing a hiring hall, through which they would exclusively employ longshoremen; (3) making rules and regulations governing such employment and the conduct of longshoremen; (4) establishing a registration system requiring all longshoremen to make application to the manager for permis

Andros, Hengstler & Dorr, of San Francisco, Cal., and Wilson & Reilly, of Portland, Or., for appellee Luckenbach S. S. Co., Inc. A. C. Spencer and Roy F. Shields, both of Portland, Or., for appellee San Francisco & P. S. S. Co.

7 F. (2d)-1

ships in interstate and foreign commerce, who, after referring the application to a person who had a list of persons who were objectionable to respondents (which complainants allege on information and belief is becauce of affiliation with labor organizations), would, if not objected to, put the