## Facts

- Mitchell Woodbury Corporation operated an interstate business selling and installing kitchen equipment and utensils.
- Albert Pick-Barth Co., Inc. competed in the same line of trade and was associated with a large nationwide group of firms in that industry.
- Two trusted Mitchell Woodbury employees (Stuart and McDonald) had access to confidential business information, including customer lists (present and prospective), cost records, plans, and related data.
- Mitchell Woodbury alleged Stuart and McDonald conspired with Albert Pick-Barth to divert Mitchell Woodbury’s interstate business and restrain or destroy its competition across several states.
- As part of the alleged plan, Stuart and McDonald left Mitchell Woodbury for Albert Pick-Barth, took confidential records and data, and recruited other trained staff to leave Mitchell Woodbury for the competitor.
- The jury found a conspiracy to injure Mitchell Woodbury’s business and substantially affect its interstate business, but also found the conspiracy was largely unsuccessful and did not produce a broad, accomplished unreasonable restraint of interstate commerce.
- The jury awarded damages of $40,000 (before statutory trebling).

## Issues

1. Whether a conspiracy aimed at eliminating a competitor in interstate commerce through unfair means violates Sherman Act § 1 even if it is largely unsuccessful and does not achieve an accomplished, market-wide unreasonable restraint.
2. In a private treble-damages action under Sherman Act § 7 (as amended by Clayton Act § 4), whether the plaintiff must prove public injury or a completed restraint of trade, or instead only a forbidden conspiracy that caused injury to the plaintiff’s interstate business.

## Decision

- The First Circuit affirmed judgment for Mitchell Woodbury.
- The court held that a conspiracy to eliminate a competitor in interstate commerce by unfair means can constitute a combination or conspiracy in restraint of trade under Sherman Act § 1.
- The court rejected the argument that liability required proof of an accomplished, unreasonable restraint affecting the broader market.
- The court held that, for private treble damages, it was enough that Mitchell Woodbury was injured in its business by conduct forbidden by the antitrust laws; separate proof of public injury was not required.

## Legal Principles

- A combination or conspiracy whose purpose is to suppress competition by eliminating a competitor in interstate commerce may violate Sherman Act § 1 even if the scheme is not fully successful.
- Antitrust liability may rest on the existence and purpose of the conspiratorial restraint, not solely on proof that a market-wide unreasonable restraint was achieved.
- In a private action for treble damages, the plaintiff must show injury to business or property caused by conduct forbidden by the antitrust laws; proof of broader public injury is not an additional element.
- Conduct resembling unfair competition may fall within federal antitrust law when coordinated action is directed at removing a competitor from interstate trade and substantially affects the plaintiff’s interstate business.

## Conclusion

The court sustained a private treble-damages judgment based on a finding that defendants conspired to eliminate a rival’s interstate business through coordinated employee raiding and misappropriation of confidential information, holding that the unlawful agreement and plaintiff-specific injury could establish a Sherman Act § 1 violation without proof of a completed, market-wide unreasonable restraint or separate public injury.


Albert Pick-Barth Co. v. Mitchell Woodbury Corp., 57 F.2d 96 (1st Cir. 1932)