US LAWS, STATUTES and CODES : Chan Robles Virtual Law Library USA Supreme Court Decisions | Resolutions : Chan Robles Virtual Law Library

ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library™ |™   
Main Index Repository of Laws, Statutes and Codes Latest Philippine Supreme Court Decisions Chan Robles Virtual Law Library Latest Legal Updates Philippine Legal Resources Significant Philippine Legal Resources Worldwide Legal Resources Philippine Supreme Court Decisions United States Legal Resources United States Supreme Court Jurisprudence ChanRobles LawTube - Social Network

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : DebtKollect Company, Inc. - Debt Collection Firm Intellectual Property Division - Chan Robles Law Firm

Philippine Supreme Court DecisionsChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

google search for chanrobles.comSearch for

UNITED STATES V. WINSLOW, 227 U. S. 202 (1913)

Subscribe to Cases that cite 227 U. S. 202 RSS feed for this section

U.S. Supreme Court

United States v. Winslow, 227 U.S. 202 (1913)

United States v. Winslow

No. 620

Argued January 10, 1913

Decided February 3, 1913

227 U.S. 202


On appeals under the Criminal Appeals Act of 1907, this Court has no jurisdiction to review the interpretation of the indictment by the lower court, United States v. Patten, 226 U. S. 525, and if that court has construed the count as alleging a combination of a particular date to be in violation of the Sherman Law, without regard to subsequent acts, this Court cannot pass upon the validity of those acts.

A combination for greater efficiency does not necessarily violate the Sherman Anti-Trust Act.

Where each of several groups is carrying on a legal business of making patented machines which do not compete with each other, although the machines of all the groups are used by manufacturers of the same article, such as shoes, a combination of the several groups does not violate the Sherman Anti-Trust Act.

Exclusion of competitors from making the patented article is of the very essence of the right conferred by the patent.

Where the share in interstate commerce does not appear in the record, and the machines in question are not alleged to be types of all the machines used in manufacturing the article for which they are made, the government cannot claim that a specified proportion of the business was put into a single hand.

The disintegration aimed at by the Sherman Anti-Trust Act does not extend to reducing all manufacture to isolated units of the lowest degree.

The Criminal Appeals Act of March 2, 1907, c. 2564, 34 Stat. 1246, is a special provision and, as it is not mentioned in the repealing section of the Judicial Code of 1911 and is not superseded by any other regulation of the matter, it was not repealed by the Judicial Code. United States, Petitioner, 226 U. S. 420.

The district court rightly held that the counts under review of the indictment against various persons for combining their businesses of chanroblesvirtualawlibrary

Page 227 U. S. 203

manufacturing patented machines for making different parts of shoes, and not competing with each other, did not constitute an offense under the Sherman Anti-Trust Act.

195 F.5d 8 affirmed.

The facts, which involve the construction of the Sherman Anti-Trust Act and determining whether the combination charged in an indictment thereunder of various manufacturers of patented shoe machinery constituted a violation thereof, are stated in the opinion. chanroblesvirtualawlibrary

Page 227 U. S. 214

ChanRobles™ LawTube

google search for Search for

Supreme Court Decisions Philippine Supreme Court DecisionsUS Supreme Court Decisions



Browse By ->> Volume


Browse By ->> Year


  Copyright © ChanRobles Publishing Company | Disclaimer | E-mail Restrictions
ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library |™