116 746 United States v. Mullen (D. C. La.) Whitewater Lumber Co., In re (D. Ala.) Williams v. Mason (D. C. Fla.) SIXTH CIRCUIT. Benham v. United States (C. C. A. Ohio).. 271 (D. C. Mich.) Butler v. United States (C. C. A. Ky.)...1017 Cadillac Automobile Motor No. 61-D-476 v. United States (C. C. A. Tenn.).. 102 Christian v. International Ass'n of Machinists (D. C. Ky.)..... 481 American Range & Foundry Co. v. Mercantile Trust Co. (C. C. A. Minn.).. Amsinck & Co. v. Springfield Grocer Co. (C. C. A. Mo.). Frackman Co. v. Lloyd's London, Inc. (D. Chicago Reed & Furniture Co., In re (C. C. A. Ill.).. · · · · Arnold v. United States (C. C. A. Wis.).. 867 Ashland Water Co. v. Railroad Commission of Wisconsin (D. C. Wis.). 924 885 C. Ill.) 620 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.).. 865 Pattiz v. Semple (D. C. Ill.) ... 618 United States v. Moore (D. C. Ill.). 734 Wickham & Burton Coal Co. v. Minnesota Coal Co. (C. C. A. Ill.).... 873 Allen v. Cartan & Jeffrey Co. (C. C. A. Neb.) 21 417 Jones v. Ready (C. C. A. Mo.). 461 Fasulo v. United States (C. C. A. Cal.)... 961 Fern Gold Mining Co. v. Murphy (C. C. A. J. W. Hutchins Co. v. Ford Motor Co. (C. ..1020 .1019 Fidelity & Deposit Co. of Maryland v. Redfield (C. Č. A. Idaho).. 800 396 522 Or.) 231 7 F.(2d) Page Scranton & Short, In re (D. C. Or.).... 473 Spracklen v. Atchison, T. & S. F. R. Co. Stein, In re (D. C. Cal.). Terry v. United States (C. C. A. Cal.) United States v. American-Hawaiian S. S. 893 468 United States V. Southern California Page 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 1 Wong Shee v. Nagle (C. C. A. Cal.) 612 169 28 153 United States v. Olmstead (D. C. Wash.) 756 See End of Index for Tables of Federal Cases in Other Reports CASES ARGUED AND DETERMINED IN THE CIRCUIT COURTS OF APPEALS AND DISTRICT COURTS OF 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 emmembers, with a constitution and by-laws in ployers' association among themselves as 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 Lord & Moulton, of Portland, Or., for sion to work in loading and discharging appellants. 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 |