![if gte IE 9]><![endif]><![if gte IE 9]><![endif]><![if gte IE 9]><![endif]>
Thank You For Submiting Feedback!
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued March 10, 1919. ; June 2, 1919, Decided
[*301] [**466] [***994] MR. JUSTICE McREYNOLDS delivered the opinion of the court.
] Writs of error from District Courts directly here may be taken by the United States "From a decision or judgment quashing, setting aside, or sustaining a demurrer to, any indictment, or any count thereof, where such decision or judgment is based upon the invalidity, construction of the statute upon which the indictment is founded." (Act of March 2, 1907, c. 2564, 34 Stat. 1246.) Upon such a writ "we have no authority to revise the mere interpretation of an indictment and are confined to ascertaining whether the court in a case under review erroneously construed the statute." "We must accept that court's interpretation of the indictments and confine our review to the question of the construction of the statute involved in its [*302] decision." United States v. Carter, 231 U.S. 492, 493; United States v. Miller, 223 U.S. 599, 602.
Being of opinion that "The indictment should set forth such a state of facts as [***995] [****3] to make it clear that a manufacturer, engaged in what was believed to be the lawful conduct of its business, has violated some known law, before it is haled into court to answer the charge of the commission of a crime" and holding that it "fails to charge any offense under the Sherman Act or any other law of the United States, that is to say, as to the substance of the indictment and the conduct and acts charged therein" the trial court sustained a demurrer to the one before us. Its reasoning and conclusions are set out in a written opinion. 253 Fed. Rep. 522.
We are confronted by an uncertain interpretation of an indictment itself couched in rather vague and general language. Counsel differ radically concerning the meaning of the opinion below and there is much room for the controversy between them.
Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.
250 U.S. 300 *; 39 S. Ct. 465 **; 63 L. Ed. 992 ***; 1919 U.S. LEXIS 1748 ****; 7 A.L.R. 443
UNITED STATES v. COLGATE & COMPANY.
Prior History: [****1] ERROR TO THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA.
The case is stated in the opinion.
Disposition: The Court affirmed the trial court's judgment sustaining an objection to petitioner's indictment because the indictment did not charge respondent with violating antitrust law by fixing prices with wholesale and retail dealers.
prices, products, indictment, manufacturer, dealers, retail dealer, retail, customers, resell, wholesale dealer, wholesale, sales, adherence, commerce
Criminal Law & Procedure, Appeals, Right to Appeal, Defendants, Civil Procedure, Other Jurisdiction, Direct Appeals & Three Judge Courts, General Overview, Accusatory Instruments, Indictments, Standards of Review, Antitrust & Trade Law, Monopolies & Monopolization, Attempts to Monopolize, Conspiracy to Monopolize, Sherman Act, Scope