The United States brought a civil action in the Federal District Court charging a violation of 1 of the Sherman Act by a trade association of Chicago lathing contractors, two of its member contractors, and a local labor union composed of lathers. The complaint alleged a combination and conspiracy to restrain competition in the lathing business, and charged that an effect of the combination and conspiracy was that interstate trade and commerce in lathing and related building materials had been unlawfully restrained. Held: The complaint stated a cause of action on which relief can be granted on proper proof. United States v. Employing Plasterers Assn., ante, p. 186. Pp. 198-200.
118 F. Supp. 387, reversed.
Charles H. Weston argued the cause for the United States. With him on the brief were Acting Solicitor General Stern, Assistant Attorney General Barnes and Marvin E. Frankel.
Leo F. Tierney argued the cause for the Employing Lathers Association of Chicago and Vicinity et al., appellees. With him on the brief was Charles L. Stewart, Jr.
Lester Asher, Nathan M. Cohen and Robert S. Fiffer submitted on brief for Local No. 74 of the Wood, Wire and Metal Lathers International Union of Chicago, Illinois and Vicinity, appellee.
MR. JUSTICE BLACK delivered the opinion of the Court.
This civil action was brought by the Government in a Federal District Court of Illinois against appellees, a trade association of Chicago lathing contractors, two of [347 U.S. 198, 199] its member contractors, and a local labor union composed of lathers. The complaint charged a violation of 1 of the Sherman Act which forbids combinations or conspiracies in restraint of trade or commerce among the states. 15 U.S.C. 1. * The District Court dismissed the complaint on the ground that it failed to state a cause of action on which relief could be granted. At the same time and for the same reason it dismissed a similar complaint charging a Chicago plasterers' association and a local plasterers' union with violating 1 of the Sherman Act. Both cases were brought here on direct appeal by the Government under authority of 15 U.S.C. 29. We have just reversed the District Court's dismissal of the complaint against the plastering group, United States v. Employing Plasterers Assn. of Chicago, ante, p. 186. Despite some differences in the two complaints, the reasons for reversing the plasterers' case are equally applicable here.
This complaint shows:
The complaint does state a cause of action on which relief can be granted on proper proof.