Supreme Court of the United States, 1916

Fleitmann Ex Rel. Stockholders of the Consolidated Street Lighting Co. v. Welsbach Street Lighting Co.

Supreme Court of the United States · Decided January 24, 1916 · Holmes, McKenna, Pitney

240 U.S. 27; 36 S. Ct. 233; 60 L. Ed. 505; 1916 U.S. LEXIS 1419 (United States Reports)

Counsel

Mr. Henry L. Scheuerman, with whom Mr. Henry A. Wise and Mr. Harry F. Mela were on the brief, for appellant., Mr. Edward W. Hatch, with whom Mr. William FSheehan was on the brief, for appellees.

Cases that cite this one

108 later published cases cite this decision. The 24 that cite it most often are listed here.

Zenith Radio Corp. v. Matsushita Electric Industrial Co. (District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania 1979)
Ross v. Bernhard (Supreme Court of the United States 1969)
Kogan v. Schenley Industries, Inc. (United States District Court for the District of Delaware 1956)
Frank Irey, Jr., Inc., a Corporation v. Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission (3d Cir. 1975)
Fanchon & Marco, Inc. v. Paramount Pictures, Inc. (2d Cir. 1953)
Matsushita Electric Industrial Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp. (3d Cir. 1980)
Standard Oil Company of California v. Arizona, California, Florida, Oregon, and Washington (9th Cir. 1984)
Howard Ross and Bernard Ross, as Trustees for Lena Rosenbaum v. Robert A. Bernhard (2d Cir. 1969)
In re Japanese Electronic Products Antitrust Litigation (3d Cir. 1980)
Rogers v. American Can Company (3d Cir. 1962)
Rogers v. American Can Co. (3d Cir. 1962)
Banana Distributors, Inc. v. United Fruit Co. (District Court, S.D. New York 1957)
Fanchon & Marco, Inc. v. Paramount Pictures, Inc. (District Court, S.D. New York 1952)
Weltzin v. Nail (Iowa 2000)
Roger Cotten v. Witco Chemical Corporation (5th Cir. 1981)
Darryl B. Deaktor v. L. D. Schreiber & Co., Al Phillips, Jr. v. The Chicago Mercantile Exchange (7th Cir. 1973)
Julia Rogers v. Leroy Loether (7th Cir. 1972)
Cherokee Laboratories, Inc. v. Rotary Drilling Services, Inc. (5th Cir. 1967)
Walker Distributing Company v. Lucky Lager Brewing Company (9th Cir. 1963)
Leonia Amusement Corp. v. Loew's Inc. (District Court, S.D. New York 1953)
Arnstein v. Porter (2d Cir. 1946)
Swofford v. B & W, Inc. (5th Cir. 1964)
Deep Photonics Corp. v. LaChapelle (Or. 2021)
Decorative Stone Co. v. Building Trades Council of Westchester County (2d Cir. 1928)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion

Mr. Justice Holmes

delivered the opinion of the court.

This is a bill by a stockholder of the Consolidated Street Lighting Company, against that Company and a number *28 of other corporations and individuals, to compel the defendants other than his own company to pay to the latter threefold damages under the Sherman Act. July 2, 1890, c. 647, §7; 26 Stat. 209, 210. ' According to the allegations the other defendants conspired to control the business of municipal lighting, &c. throughout the United States and in pursuance of their conspiracy procured their agent to purchase from the former owners a majority of the stock in the plaintiff’s company, and' then proceeded to ruin it and drive it out of business' by, misconducting its affairs. The plaintiff has demanded of his company and its. officers to institute proceedings but they have refused. The bill was dismissed by the District Court on motion of the appellees in the two appeals before this court, and the decree was affirmed by the, Circuit Court of Appeals. 211 Fed. Rep. 103. Í28 C. C. A. 31.

The bill alleges in terms that it is brought to recover threefold the damages alleged; a decree for such damages was the relief prayed. The only specific error assigned on appeal to the Circuit Court of Appeals was holding that such a suit in equity could not be maintained by a single stockholder; that was the only question dealt with by the District Court and that was the ground of decision in the . Circuit Court of Appeals. It, really is the only question in the case.

Of course the claim set up is that of the corporation alone, and if the corporation were proceeding directly under the statute no one can doubt that its only remedy would be at law. Therefore the inquiry at once arises why the defendants’ right to a jury trial should be taken away because the present plaintiff cannot persuade the only party having a cause of action to sue — how the liability , which is> the principal matter can be converted into an incident of the plaintiff’s domestic difficulties with the company that has been wronged.

No doubt there are eases in which .the nature of the *29 right asserted for the company, or' the failure of the defendants concerned to insist upon their rights, or a different state system, has led to the whole matter being disposed of in equity; but wé agree with the courts below that when a penalty .of triple damages is sought to be inflicted, the statute should not be read as attempting to authorize liability to be enforced otherwise than through the verdict of a'jury in a court of common law. On the contrary it plainly provides the latter remedy and it provides no other. Pollard v. Bailey, 20 Wall. 520. Even the Act of October 15, 1914, c. 323, § 16, 38 Stat. 730, 737, .passed since this suit was begun, does not go farther in terms than to give an injunction to private persons against threatened loss.

It now is suggested, evidently as an afterthought since the decision in the District Court, that there might be a decree directing the corporation to sue or, if it fails to do so, permitting the plaintiff to sue in its name and on its behalf. But the bill is- not framed for that purpose, as the court below held.

Decree affirmed.

Mr. Justice McKenna and Mr. Justice Pitney dissent.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.