Home

Alphabetic Chronological Legal Area Product

Full Text/Search

Key Statutes Glossary Links AntiTrust.Org

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

Syllabus

171 U.S. 578

HOPKINS v. UNITED STATES

No. 210. Argued February 28, March 1, 1898 -- Decided October 24, 1898,

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT.

The Kansas City Live Stock Exchange was an unincorporated volunteer association of men, doing business at its stock yards, situated partly in Kansas City, Missouri, and partly across the line separating Kansas City, Missouri, from Kansas City, Kansas. The business of its members was to receive individually consignments of cattle, hogs, and other live stock from owners of the same, not only in the States of Missouri and Kansas, but also in other States and Territories, and to feed such stock, and to prepare it for the market, to dispose of the same, to receive the proceeds thereof from the purchasers, and to pay the owners their proportion of such proceeds, after deducting charges, expenses and advances. The members were individually in the habit of soliciting consignments from the owners of such stock, and of marking them advances thereon. The rules of the association forbade members from buying live stock from a commission merchant in Kansas City, not a member of the exchange. They also fixed the commission for selling such live stock, prohibited the employment of agents to solicit consignments except upon a stipulated salary, and forbade the sending of prepaid telegrams or telephone messages, with information as to the condition of the markets. It was also provided that no member should transact business with any person violating the rules and regulations, or with an expelled or suspended member after notice of such violation.

Held,

that the situation of the yards, partly in Kansas and partly in Missouri, was a fact without any weight; that such business or occupation of the several members of the association was not interstate commerce, within the meaning of the act of July 2, 1890, c. 647, "to protect trade and commerce against unlawful restraints and monopolies;" and that that act does not cover, and was not intended to cover, such kind of agreements

MR. JUSTICE PECKHAM, after stating the case, delivered the opinion of the court.


All graphics and HTML are copyright Anthony D. Becker 1994-2004.

Disclaimer