United States v. American-Asiatic Steamship Co.
Cases that cite this one
18 later published cases cite this decision.
- Leslie Taylor v. Board Of Education Of The City School District Of The City Of New Rochelle (2d Cir. 1961)
- Taylor v. Board of Education (2d Cir. 1961)
- United States v. Logan Co. (District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania 1957)
- United States v. Insurance Board of Cleveland (District Court, N.D. Ohio 1956)
- Acheson, Secretary of State v. Droesse (D.C. Cir. 1952)
- Acheson v. Droesse (D.C. Cir. 1952)
- Howard v. Wilbur (6th Cir. 1948)
- Howard v. Wilbur (6th Cir. 1948)
- Newcomb v. United States (9th Cir. 1938)
- American Mercury, Inc. v. Kiely (2d Cir. 1927)
- United States v. Chesebrough Mfg. Co. (District Court, S.D. New York 1926)
- Federal Maritime Board v. Isbrandtsen Co. (Supreme Court of the United States 1958)
- Chicago & N. W. Ry. Co. v. Eveland (8th Cir. 1923)
- Dakota Coal Co. v. Fraser (8th Cir. 1920)
- United States v. Munsingwear, Inc. (Supreme Court of the United States 1950)
- State ex rel. Hughes v. Milhollan (N.D. 1923)
- Chicago &. N. W. Ry. Co. v. Railroad & Warehouse Commission (D. Minn. 1922)
- Commercial Cable Co. v. Burleson (Supreme Court of the United States 1919)
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
Memorandum opinion by
by direction of the court.
The United States sued to restrain the carrying out of agreements between British, German and American steam *538 ship companies who were defendants, on the ground that they were in violation of the Anti-Trust Act of July 2, 1890, c. 647, 26 Stat. 209. Overruling the contention that that act did not relate to contracts concerning ocean carriage, the court entered decrees against the United States in both cases dismissing the bills for want of equity on the ground that the assailed agreements were not in conflict with the Anti-Trust Act except as to a particular discrimination found to have been practiced in one of the. cases which was provided against. 220 Fed. Rep. 230. At the time this action was taken by the court below, as the result of the European War, the assailed agreements had been dissolved and the questions raised by the bills were therefore purely moot, as directly decided to be the case as to a similar situation in United States v. Hamburg-American Co., 239 U. S. 466.
Under these circumstances the request now made by the United States that the doctrine announced in the Hamburg-American Case be applied to both of these cases and the relief afforded in that case be awarded, is well founded and must be granted. It follows, therefore, that the decrees below must be reversed and the cases be remanded to the court below with directions to dismiss the bills without prejudice to the right of the United States in the future to assail any actual contract or combination deemed to offend against the Anti-Trust Act.
And it is so ordered.
Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.