Supreme Court of the United States, 1927

Federal Trade Commission v. American Tobacco Co.

Supreme Court of the United States · Decided May 31, 1927 · McReynolds

274 U.S. 543; 47 S. Ct. 663; 71 L. Ed. 1193; 1927 U.S. LEXIS 50 (United States Reports)

Counsel

Mr. Adrien F. Busick, with whom Solicitor General Mitchell, and Messrs. Bayard T. Hainer and Edward L. Smith were on the brief, for petitioner., Mr. Edward S. Rogers, with whom Mr. Jonathan H. Holmes was on the brief, for respondent.

Cases that cite this one

7 later published cases cite this decision.

Western Star Trucks, Inc. v. Big Iron Equipment Service, Inc. (Alaska 2004)
Marr v. Wmx Technologies, Inc., No. Cv96-0071542s (Nov. 6, 1998) (Connecticut Superior Court 1998)
Larsen Chelsey Realty Co. v. Larsen (Conn. 1995)
Dick v. New York Life Insurance (Supreme Court of the United States 1959)
Magenau v. Aetna Freight Lines, Inc. (Supreme Court of the United States 1959)
Federal Trade Commission v. Standard Oil Co. (Supreme Court of the United States 1958)
National Labor Relations Board v. Pittsburgh Steamship Co. (Supreme Court of the United States 1951)

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

*544 Mr. Justice McReynolds

delivered the opinion of the Court.

The statement of the petition for certiorari that the judgment and opinion below might seriously hinder future administration of' the law was grave and sufficiently probable to justify issuance of the writ.

Proper decision óf the controversy depends upon a question of fact. Did the American Tobacco- Company becomé party to the unlawful combination of.tobacco jobbers at Philadelphia to maintain prices? After considering much' evidence the Commission gave affirmative answer to that query; but the Circuit Court of Appeals thought there was nothing to support their view. 9 Fed. (2d) 570.

It now appears to us that this matter of fact is of no general importance. Accordingly, we adhere to the usual rule of non-interference where conclusions of Circuit Courts of Appeals depend on appreciation of circumstances which admit of different interpretations. And upon that ground alone we affirm the judgment below.

The opinion of the Circuit Court of Appeals is of uncertain intendment and is not satisfactory as an exposition of the law. What this Court has said in many opinions indicates cléarly enough the general purpose of the statute and the necessity of applying it with strict regard thereto-

Affirmed.

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