Fleitmann v. United Gas Improvement Co., 211 F. 103 (1914). · Go Syfert
Search
Fleitmann v. United Gas Improvement Co., 211 F. 103 (1914). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
5 citation events across 3 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: In Re Japanese Electronic Products Antitrust Litigation (ca3, 1980-07-07)
Top citers, strongest first. 2 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) In Re Japanese Electronic Products Antitrust Litigation
3rd Cir. · 1980 · confidence medium
The opinion of the Court of Appeals in Fleitmann states: "(A)n action to recover treble damages under section 7 of the (Sherman Act) must be an action at law, where the defendants have the constitutional right to a jury trial." Fleitmann v. United Gas Improvement Co., 211 F. 103, 105 (2d Cir. 1914) (emphasis added).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Matsushita Electric Industrial Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp.
3rd Cir. · 1980 · confidence medium
The opinion of the Court of Appeals in Fleitmann states: “[A]n action to recover treble damages under section 7 of the [Sherman Act] must be an action at law, where the defendants have the constitutional right to a jury trial.” Fleitmann v. United Gas Improvement Co., 211 F. 103,105 (2d Cir. 1914) (emphasis added).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
FLEITMANN
v.
UNITED GAS IMPROVEMENT CO. (two cases)
Jan 13, 1914.
211 F. 103
Hirsch, Scheuerman & Eimbury, of New, York City (Henry L. Scheuerman, of New York City, of counsel), for appellant., Hatch & Sheehan, of New York City (Edward W. Hatch, of New York City, of counsel), for appellees.
PER CURIAM.

The opinion of Judge Coxe, sitting in the District Court, which sufficiently sets forth the allegations of the bills and in which we concur, will be found above.

[1] We are clearly of the opinion that an action to recover treble damages under section 7 of the act must be an action at law, where defendants have the constitutional right to a jury trial.

[2] The sole relief prayed in these bills is that the defendants, other than the Consolidated Company, be decreed to pay over to the Consolidated Company treble the damages it has sustained by .some violation of the Sherman Act.- We find no authority which gives to a court of equity the jurisdiction to make such a decree. There is no prayer for relief which would warrant such a construction of the tíxll as would merely require the Consolidated Company to sue the other defendants for treble damages under the statute.

We think the dismissal was proper, and affirm the decrees, with costs.