claimed, the purpose to make the departure should be "clearly shown," as said by Justice Brewer in his concurring opinion in the Northern Securities case.[1]
The Chief Justice has shown, in the Standard Oil case, as plainly as it can be made, that undue prices are prices that result from monopoly, because the normal or proper price, the non-excessive price, is the price fixed in free competition. For, as the political economists have declared, this always tends to an equalization of profits and the exchange of commodities upon a fair basis. When, however, you come to civil cases, the uninterrupted definition of fair prices has always been the same. Where damages have to be fixed by a jury, a reasonable price has always been the market price fixed in free competition. It would be impossible to cite all the cases upon this point, but reference is made to Hopkins vs. Lee,[2] where the Court says: "Otherwise, the vendor, if the article have risen in value, would always have it in his power to discharge himself from the contract and put the enhanced value in his own pocket." To the same effect is the principle sustained in New York vs. Estill,[3] Roberts vs. Benjamin,[4] and Western Union Telegraph Co. vs. Hall.[5] The Supreme Court, as now constituted, declares the same law in the Gulf case.[6] Trustees are surcharged if in the performance of their duties they do not obtain a known market price in a sale of prop-
- ↑ Northern Securities Co. vs. United States, 193 U. S. 197 (at page 361). 1904.
- ↑ Hopkins vs. Lee, 6 Wheat, 109 (at page 118). 1821.
- ↑ New York, Lake Erie & Western Railroad Co. vs. Estill, 147 U. S. 591 (at page 616). 1893.
- ↑ Roberts vs. Benjamin, 124 U. S. 64. 1888.
- ↑ Western Union Telegraph Co. vs. Hall, 124 U. S. 444 (at page 456). 1888.
- ↑ Gulf, Colorado & Santa Fe Railway Company vs. Texas Packing Company, 244 U. S. 31 (at page 37). 1917.
