Lea v. South Atl. Pecan Co., 88 S.E. 530 (S.C. 1916). · Go Syfert
Search
Lea v. South Atl. Pecan Co., 88 S.E. 530 (S.C. 1916). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
“it is essential ... that damages reflect only the losses directly attributable to unlawful competition”
283 citation events (21 in the last 25 years) across 64 distinct courts.
Treatment trajectory · 1983 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1983 2004 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 42 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (quoted) United States Football League v. National Football League
S.D.N.Y. · 1986 · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence low
it is essential ... that damages reflect only the losses directly attributable to unlawful competition
discussed Cited as authority (quoted) Southern Pacific Communications Company v. American Telephone & Telegraph Company
D.C. Cir. · 1984 · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence low
the mci case
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Huron Valley Hospital, Inc. v. City of Pontiac
E.D. Mich. · 1986 · confidence medium
And, as pointed out in Potters Medical Center , quoting from MCI Communications Corp. v. American Telephone & Telegraph Co., 708 F.2d 1081, 1156 (7th Cir.), cert. denied 464 U.S. 891 , 104 S.Ct. at 234, 78 L.Ed.2d 226 (1983).
discussed Cited "see" Moore v. U.S. Postal Service
E.D. La. · 2021 · signal: see · confidence high
See MCI Communications Corp. v. American Telephone & Telegraph Co., 708 F.2d 1081, 1166 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 891 , 104 S.Ct. 234 , 78 L.Ed.2d 226 (1983); Brom v. Bozell, Jacobs, Kenyon & Eckhardt, Inc., 867 F. Supp. 686, 689 (N.D.
discussed Cited "see" Spirit Airlines, Inc. v. Northwest Airlines, Inc.
6th Cir. · 2005 · signal: see · confidence high
See MCI Communications Corp. v. AT & T Co., 708 F.2d 1081, 1114 (7th Cir.) (holding that imposing a profit-maximization rule as the standard for liability “would tend to freeze the prices of dominant firms at their monopoly levels and would prevent many pro-competitive price cuts beneficial to consumers”), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 891 , 104 S.Ct. 234 , 78 L.Ed.2d 226 (1983).
discussed Cited "see" Spirit Airlines, Inc. v. Northwest Airlines, Inc.
6th Cir. · 2005 · signal: see · confidence high
See MCI Communications Corp. v. AT & T Co., 708 F.2d 1081, 1114 (7th Cir.) (holding that imposing a profit-maximization rule as the standard for liability "would tend to freeze the prices of dominant firms at their monopoly levels and would prevent many pro-competitive price cuts beneficial to consumers"), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 891 , 104 S.Ct. 234 , 78 L.Ed.2d 226 (1983).
cited Cited "see" Telecomm Technical Services, Inc. v. Siemens Rolm Communications, Inc.
N.D. Ga. · 2000 · signal: see · confidence high
See MCI Communications Corp. v. AT & T Co., 708 F.2d 1081, 1161 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 891 , 104 S.Ct. 234 , 78 L.Ed.2d 226 (1983).
discussed Cited "see" Board of County Supervisors of Prince William County v. United States
Fed. Cl. · 1992 · signal: see · confidence high
See MCI Communications v. AT & T, 708 F.2d 1081, 1111 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 891 , 104 S.Ct. 234 , 78 L.Ed.2d 226 (1983); Miller v. United States, 223 Ct.Cl. 352 , 620 F.2d 812, 837 (1980).
cited Cited "see" Christianson v. Colt Industries Operating Corp.
C.D. Ill. · 1991 · signal: see · confidence high
See, MCI Communications v. American Telephone and Telegraph Co., 708 F.2d 1081, 1155 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 891 , 104 S.Ct. 234 , 78 L.Ed.2d 226 (1983) (footnote omitted).
cited Cited "see" Laurel Sand & Gravel, Inc. Maryland Midland Railway, Inc. v. Csx Transportation, Inc.
4th Cir. · 1991 · signal: see · confidence high
See MCI Communications v. American Telephone and Telegraph Co., 708 F.2d 1081, 1132-33 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 891 , 104 S.Ct. 234 , 78 L.Ed.2d 226 (1983).
cited Cited "see" Illinois Ex Rel. Hartigan v. Panhandle Eastern Pipe Line Co.
C.D. Ill. · 1990 · signal: see · confidence high
See, MCI Communications Corp. v. AT & T Co., 708 F.2d 1081, 1106 (7th Cir.1983), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 891 , 104 S.Ct. 234 , 78 L.Ed.2d 226 (1983).
discussed Cited "see" In Re Air Crash Disaster at Stapleton International Airport (2×) also: Cited "see, e.g."
D. Colo. · 1989 · signal: see · confidence high
See MCI Communications v. American Telephone & Telegraph, 708 F.2d 1081, 1173 (7th Cir.1983), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 891 , 104 S.Ct. 234 , 78 L.Ed.2d 226 (1983).
cited Cited "see" Laurel Sand & Gravel, Inc. v. CSX Transportation, Inc.
D. Maryland · 1989 · signal: see · confidence high
See MCI Communications v. American Telephone & Telegraph Co., 708 F.2d 1081, 1132-33 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 891 , 104 S.Ct. 234 , 78 L.Ed.2d 226 (1983).
discussed Cited "see" Duffitt v. State (2×)
Ind. Ct. App. · 1988 · signal: see · confidence high
See U.S. v. Walker (&th Cir.1982), 696 F.2d 277 , cert. denied, 464 U.S. 891 , 104 S.Ct. 234 , 78 L.Ed.2d 226 .
discussed Cited "see" Oahu Gas Service, Inc. v. Pacific Resources Inc., Gasco, Inc.
9th Cir. · 1988 · signal: see · confidence high
See MCI Communications Corp. v.AT & T Co., 708 F.2d 1081, 1132 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 891 , 104 S.Ct. 234 , 78 L.Ed.2d 226 (1983) (plaintiff must show control of the essential facility by a monopolist).
discussed Cited "see" G. Heileman Brewing Co. v. Anheuser-Busch Inc. (2×) also: Cited "see, e.g."
E.D. Wis. · 1987 · signal: see · confidence high
See MCI Communications v. American Telephone and Telegraph Company, 708 F.2d 1081, 1155 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 891 , 104 S.Ct. 234 , 78 L.Ed.2d 226 (1983). 25 81.
discussed Cited "see" Oahu Gas Service, Inc. v. Pacific Resources Inc., Gasco, Inc.
9th Cir. · 1987 · signal: see · confidence high
See MCI Communications Corp. v. AT&T Co., 708 F.2d 1081, 1132 (7th Cir.), cert, denied, 464 U.S. 891 , 104 S.Ct. 234 , 78 L.Ed.2d 226 (1983) (plaintiff must show control of the essential facility by a monopolist).
discussed Cited "see" Consol. Gas Co. of Fla. v. City Gas Co. of Fla.
S.D. Fla. · 1987 · signal: see · confidence high
However, “[r]eliance on statistical market share is a questionable approach in cases involving regulated industries____ A predominant market share may merely be the result of regulation, and regulatory control may preclude the exercise of monopoly power.” Southern Pacific Communications Co. v. American Telephone & Telegraph Co., 740 F.2d 980, 1000 (D.C.Cir.1984), cer t. denied, 470 U.S. 1005 , 105 S.Ct. 1359 , 84 L.Ed.2d 380 (1985); see MCI Communications Corp. v. American Telephone & Telegraph Co., 708 F.2d 1081, 1106-07 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 891 , 104 S.Ct. 234 , 78 L.Ed.2d …
discussed Cited "see" Valley Liquors, Inc., an Illinois Corporation v. Renfield Importers, Ltd.
7th Cir. · 1987 · signal: see · confidence high
“Bad faith” is defined as “generally implying or involving actual or constructive fraud, or a design to mislead or deceive another, or a neglect or refusal to fulfill some duty or some contractual obligation, not prompted by an honest mistake as to one’s rights or duties, but by some interested or sinister motive.” Black’s Law Dictionary 127 (5th ed. 1979); see MCI Communications Corp. v. American Telegraph & Telephone Co., 708 F.2d 1081 , 1159 n. 116 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 891 , 104 S.Ct. 234 , 78 L.Ed.2d 226 (1983).
discussed Cited "see" Marvin L. Fishman and Illinois Basketball, Inc. v. Estate of Arthur M. Wirtz, and Illinois Basketball, Inc. v. Estate of Arthur M. Wirtz (2×)
7th Cir. · 1987 · signal: see · confidence high
See MCI Communications Corp. v. American Telephone & Telegraph Co., 708 F.2d 1081, 1113 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 891 , 104 S.Ct. 234 , 78 L.Ed.2d 226 (1983).
cited Cited "see" Isaksen v. Vermont Castings, Inc.
W.D. Wis. · 1986 · signal: see · confidence high
See, generally, MCI Communications v. AT & T, 708 F.2d 1081, 1160-69 (7th Cir.1983), cert. den., 464 U.S. 891 , 104 S.Ct. 234 , 78 L.Ed.2d 226 .
discussed Cited "see" Ball Memorial Hospital, Inc. v. Mutual Hospital Insurance, Inc.
7th Cir. · 1986 · signal: see · confidence high
See MCI Communications Corp. v. AT&T, 708 F.2d 1081 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 891 , 104 S.Ct. 234 , 78 L.Ed.2d 226 (1983), which holds that a dominant firm may slash prices to marginal cost in an effort to capture patronage.
discussed Cited "see" Ball Memorial Hospital, Inc. v. Mutual Hospital Insurance
7th Cir. · 1986 · signal: see · confidence high
See MCI Communications Corp. v. AT&T, 708 F.2d 1081 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 891 , 104 S.Ct. 234 , 78 L.Ed.2d 226 (1983), which holds that a dominant firm may slash prices to marginal cost in an effort to capture patronage.
discussed Cited "see" American Trucking Association, Inc. v. United States of America and Interstate Commerce Commission (2×)
7th Cir. · 1985 · signal: see · confidence high
See MCI Communications v. AT & T, 708 F.2d 1081, 1111 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S.-, 104 S.Ct. 234 , 78 L.Ed.2d 226 (1983).
examined Cited "see" Southern Pacific Communications Co. v. American Telephone and Telegraph Co. (6×) also: Cited "see, e.g."
D.C. Cir. · 1984 · signal: see · confidence high
See MCI Communications Corp. v. AT & T, 708 F.2d 1081, 1106-07 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S.-, 104 S.Ct. 234 , 78 L.Ed.2d 226 (1983); Watson & Brunner, Monopolization by Regulated “Monopolies”: The Search for Substantive Standards, 22 Antitrust Bull. 559, 565-68 (1977). *1001 The District Court’s analysis of monopoly power in the present case is consistent with the above principles.
cited Cited "see" MCI Communications Corporation and MCI Telecommunications Corporation v. American Telephone and Telegraph Company
7th Cir. · 1983 · signal: see · confidence high
See 104 S.Ct. 234 .
cited Cited "see, e.g." Reserve Realty, LLC v. Windemere Reserve, LLC
Conn. · 2020 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e.g., MCI Communications Corp. v. Ameri- can Telephone & Telegraph Co., 708 F.2d 1081, 1132 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 891 , 104 S. Ct. 234 , 78 L.
cited Cited "see, e.g." Reserve Realty, LLC v. Windemere Reserve, LLC
Conn. · 2020 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e.g., MCI Communications Corp. v. Ameri- can Telephone & Telegraph Co., 708 F.2d 1081, 1132 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 891 , 104 S. Ct. 234 , 78 L.
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Anserphone, Inc. v. Bell Atlantic Corp.
W.D. Pa. · 1996 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also Advanced, Health-Care Services v. Radford Community Hospital, 910 F.2d 139 , 150 (4th Cir.1990) (citing MCI Communications v. American Telephone & Telegraph, 708 F.2d 1081, 1132-33 (7th Cir.1983), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 891 , 104 S.Ct. 234 , 78 L.Ed.2d 226 (1983)).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Tabas v. Tabas
E.D. Pa. · 1996 · signal: see also · confidence low
At bottom, Duquesne Light reaffirms that “the litigants in a particular case do not own the court.” Id; see also MCI Communications Corp. v. AT & T, 708 F.2d 1081, 1171 (7th Cir.) (“Litigants are not entitled to burden the court with an unending stream of cumulative evidence.”), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 891 , 104 S.Ct. 234 , 78 L.Ed.2d 226 (1983).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." In Re Aluminum Phosphide Antitrust Litigation
D. Kan. · 1995 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e.g., Amerinet, 972 F.2d at 1494 (once causation of damages established amount of damages may be determined by just and reasonable estimate) (quoting MCI Communications Corp. v. American Telephone and Telegraph Co., 708 F.2d 1081, 1161 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 891 , 104 S.Ct. 234 , 78 L.Ed.2d 226 (1983)).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Amerinet, Inc. v. Xerox Corporation
8th Cir. · 1992 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also MCI Communications Corp. v. American Telephone and Telegraph Co., 708 F.2d 1081, 1161 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 891 , 104 S.Ct. 234 , 78 L.Ed.2d 226 (1983); Rosebrough, 666 F.2d at 1146 ; R.S.E., Inc. v. Pennsy Supply, Inc., 523 F.Supp. 954, 963 (M.D.Pa.1981).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Amerinet, Inc. v. Xerox Corp.
8th Cir. · 1992 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also MCI Communications Corp. v. American Telephone and Telegraph Co., 708 F.2d 1081, 1161 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 891 , 104 S.Ct. 234 , 78 L.Ed.2d 226 (1983); Rosebrough, 666 F.2d at 1146 ; R.S.E., Inc. v. Pennsy Supply, Inc., 523 F.Supp. 954, 963 (M.D.Pa.1981).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." In Re Warner Communications Securities Litigation
S.D.N.Y. · 1985 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
Pfizer, 314 F.Supp. at 743-44 ; see, e.g., MCI Communications Corp. v. American Telephone & Telegraph Co., 708 F.2d 1081, 1166-69 (7th Cir.) ($1.8 billion antitrust judgment was remanded for a new trial and the second trial produced a dramatically smaller award), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 891 , 104 S.Ct. 234 , 78 L.Ed.2d 226 (1983); Telex Corp. v. International Business Machines Corp., 510 F.2d 894, 933 (10th Cir.) (per curiam) (reversed a $259.5 million judgment for plaintiff and awarded an $18.5 million counterclaim judgment for defendant), cert. dismissed, 423 U.S. 802 , 96 S.Ct. 8 , 46 L.Ed.2…
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Monfort of Colorado, Inc. v. Cargill, Inc. And Excel Corporation
10th Cir. · 1985 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e.g., MCI Communications v. AT & T, 708 F.2d 1081, 1112-13 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 104 S.Ct. 234 , 78 L.Ed.2d 226 (1983) (recognizing potential violation based on predatory pricing but finding insufficient evidence in case under consideration); William Inglis & Sons Baking Co. v. ITT Continental Baking Co., 668 F.2d 1014, 1031-38 (9th Cir.1981), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 825 , 103 S.Ct. 58 , 74 L.Ed.2d 61 (1982) (establishing rules for predatory pricing cases).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Shannon v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1985 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also Jones v. State, 429 So.2d 396 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983), review denied, — U.S.—, 104 S.Ct. 234 , 78 L.Ed.2d 226 (1983); Allen v. State, 424 So.2d 101 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982), rev. denied, 436 So.2d 97 (Fla.1983); Holley v. State, 423 So.2d 562 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Racetrac Petroleum, Inc. v. Prince George's County
D. Maryland · 1985 · signal: compare · confidence low
Compare MCI v. American Telephone & Telegraph Co., 708 F.2d 1081, 1159-60 (7th Cir. 1983), cert. denied, — U.S.-, 104 S.Ct. 234 , 78 L.Ed.2d 226 (defendant’s FCC filings protected by Noerr-Pennington but other activities not aimed at influencing governmental action not protected) with Scott v. City of Sioux City, Trade Cas.
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Jack Faucett Associates, Inc. v. American Telephone and Telegraph Co.
D.C. Cir. · 1984 · signal: see also · confidence low
Phonetele, Inc. v. AT & T, 664 F.2d 716 , 737-38 (9th Cir. 1981), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 1145 , 103 S.Ct. 785 , 74 L.Ed.2d 992 (1983); see also MCI Communications v. AT & T, 708 F.2d 1081, 1109-10 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 104 S.Ct. 234 , 78 L.Ed.2d 226 (1983).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Aspen Highlands Skiing Corp. v. Aspen Skiing Co. (2×)
10th Cir. · 1984 · signal: see also · confidence low
“There exist two conceptually similar lines of cases which impose a duty to deal upon a monopolist.” Id. at 855 ; see also MCI Communications v. AT & T, 708 F.2d 1081, 1148 (7th Cir.) cert. denied, — U.S. -, 104 S.Ct. 234 , 78 L.Ed.2d 226 (1983). 12 First, there is the so-called essential facilities or bottleneck doctrine.
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Aspen Highlands Skiing Corporation v. Aspen Skiing Company (2×)
10th Cir. · 1984 · signal: see also · confidence low
"There exist two conceptually similar lines of cases which impose a duty to deal upon a monopolist." Id. at 855 ; see also MCI Communications v. AT & T, 708 F.2d 1081, 1148 (7th Cir.) cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 104 S.Ct. 234 , 78 L.Ed.2d 226 (1983). 12 First, there is the so-called essential facilities or bottleneck doctrine.
discussed Cited "see, e.g." United States v. Manglitz
D. Maryland · 1984 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e.g., United States v. Walker, 696 F.2d 277, 280-81 (4th Cir. 1982), cert, denied, — U.S.-, 104 S.Ct. 234 , 78 L.Ed.2d 226 (1983); United States v. Murphy, 696 F.2d 282, 283-84 (4th Cir. 1982), cert, denied, — U.S.-, 103 S.Ct. 2124 , 77 L.Ed.2d 1303 (1983); United States v. Garner, 574 F.2d 1141, 1143-44 (4th Cir.), cert, denied, 439 U.S. 936 , 99 S.Ct. 333 , 58 L.Ed.2d 333 (1978); United States v. West, 574 F.2d 1131, 1134-38 (4th Cir.1978).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." City of Cleveland v. The Cleveland Electric Illuminating Company (2×)
6th Cir. · 1984 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also, e.g., MCI Communications v. AT & T, 708 F.2d 1081, 1103 (7th Cir.1983), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 104 S.Ct. 234 , 78 L.Ed.2d 226 (1983); IT & T v. Gen.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Lea
v.
South Atlantic Pecan Co.
9374.
Supreme Court of South Carolina.
Apr 6, 1916.
88 S.E. 530
Messrs. Weston Aycock , for appellant, submit: Cause of action being on express contract recovery cannot be sustained on quantum meruit: 60 S.C. 373 ; 98 S.C. 222 . Mr. D.W. Robinson , for respondent, submits: Construction of contract was for the Court: 66 S.C. 18 ; 101 S.C. 272 -3; 50 S.E. 446 ; 138 N.C. 25 . Rules of construction: 76 S.C. 300 , 301 . Against party who drew it: 74 U.S. 688 ; 76 U.S. 394 ; 192 U.S. 162 ; 64 S.E. 171 ; 150 N.C. 385 ; 46 S.C. 495 ; 78 S.C. 77 . Ambiguity: 62 S.E. 354; 108 Va. 557 ; 79 S.E. 676 ; 163 N.C. 325 . Entirety: 84 S.C. 153 . Interpretation by parties: 81 S.C. 12 ; 100 S.C. 9 -10.
Gage, Fraser.
Published

The opinion of the Court was delivered by

Mr. Justice Gage.

The plaintiff sued the defendant for $530, alleged to be due to the plaintiff for personal service. The Court directed a verdict for the plaintiff for that amount, and the defendant has appealed.

The contract betwixt the parties is evidenced by a letter from the defendant to the plaintiff, which will be reported. Thu. plaintiff sued on that, and stated for a second cause of action an implied agreement by the defendant to pay the plaintiff that which the plaintiff’s services were worth. During the trial the second cause of action was withdrawn, and the recovery was had on the written contract. The appeal involves only one question, and that is the meaning of the letter of employment.

Confessedly the plaintiff began his service September 1, 1913, and confessedly he was to be paid “$100 per month and expenses.” The only testimony was the letter of employment and the plaintiff’s. The defendant swore one witness, but his testimony made no issue. The plaintiff testified he worked for the defendant six months from September to February, both inclusive; that he was paid his expenses and $70 over them; that he was due, therefore, $530. The only contention the defendant makes is that the plaintiff’s “contract of service ended automatically when the meeting of stockholders of October, 1913, failed to authorize the issuing of stock referred to.” We think that construction of the letter is not warranted by the words of it, or by the conduct of the writers thereafter.

We shall not advert to those sometimes capricious rules which Courts have laid down for the construction of written instruments; sometimes they are like bridges across chasms which shrewd men may bestride. The proof is uncontradicted that the plaintiff did work for the defendant, with defendant’s knowledge, of course, from September 1st to[*237] March 1st; and the proof is uncontradicted that there was at the start, and confessedly for two months, a contract for service between them. The plain inference is that the plaintiff was working under the contract.

The letter by the use of the word “until” manifestly contemplated not so much an automatic ending of one contract of service as the beginning of another and different contract of service between the parties. The performance of the other contract was not entered upon by the parties. The letter contains no express words to end the first service, which service was begun by express words. An implied intent to end it will not be inferred.

We think the Circuit Court was right, and the judgment is affirmed.

Mr. Justice Fraser took no part in the consideration of this case.