American Tobacco Co. v. United States

American Tobacco Co. v. United States

Opinion

 [*783]  [**1126]  [***1580]    MR. JUSTICE BURTON delivered the opinion of the Court.

The petitioners are The American Tobacco Company, Liggett & Myers Tobacco Company, R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Company, ² American Suppliers, Inc., a subsidiary of American, and certain officials of the respective companies who were convicted by a jury, in the District Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Kentucky, of violating §§ 1 and 2 of the Sherman Anti-Trust Act, pursuant to an information filed July 24, 1940, and modified October 31, 1940.

Each petitioner was convicted on four counts: (1) conspiracy in restraint of trade, (2) monopolization, (3) attempt to monopolize, and (4) conspiracy to monopolize. Each count related to interstate and foreign trade and commerce in tobacco. No sentence was imposed under the third count as the Court held that that count was merged in the second. Each petitioner [****6]  was fined $ 5,000 on each of the other counts, making $ 15,000 for each petitioner and a total of $ 255,000. Seven other defendants were found not guilty and a number of the original defendants were severed from the proceedings pursuant to stipulation.

The Circuit Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, on December 8, 1944, affirmed each conviction. 147 F.2d 93.  [*784]  All the grounds urged for review of those judgments were considered here on petitions for certiorari. On March 26, 1945, this Court granted the petitions but each was "limited to the question whether actual exclusion of competitors is necessary to the crime of monopolization under § 2 of the Sherman Act." 324 U.S. 836. On April 19, 1945, Reynolds, et al., filed a petition for rehearing and enlargement of the scope of review in their case but it was denied. 324 U.S. 891.  [**1127]  This opinion is limited to the convictions under § 2 of the Sherman Act ³ and deals especially with those for  [***1581]  monopolization under the second count of the information.

 [****7]  The issue thus emphasized in the order allowing certiorari and primarily argued by the parties has not been previously decided by this Court. It is raised by the following instructions which were especially applicable to the second count ⁴ but were related also to the other counts under § 2 of the Sherman Act:

Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.