The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

Ds are various lumber associations composed largely of retail lumber dealers in New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Maryland and the District of Columbia. D compiled a list of wholesalers known to sell lumber directly to customers. D believed that sales to consumers was its territory. D distributed the list to its members, exhorting them not to do business with wholesalers who competed with retailers. There was no agreement among D and its members nor any penalty to the members that required them to stop doing business with those on the list. In reality, it was just information about competitors. In practice, most members refused to do business with any of the wholesalers on the list. D also put in place a means for its members to contact D and inform on wholesalers who did business with the public. They were added to the master list and disseminated to members. P sued under the Sherman Act claiming a conspiracy to restrain competition. D argued that there was no agreement. The district court found P holding that the list was a conspiracy to restrain trade by the boycott is promoted. D appealed.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.