## Facts

- The United States indicted Winslow and others associated with several companies that manufactured patented shoe-making machinery, including lasting, welt-sewing, and outsole-stitching machines.
- The manufacturers produced different types of machines used in shoe production and, as charged in the relevant counts as construed below, did not compete with one another in the same line of machinery.
- The companies combined into a single enterprise, later operating as the United Shoe Machinery Company.
- The government alleged the combination constituted an unlawful restraint of trade under the Sherman Antitrust Act, and also referenced leasing practices.
- The district court sustained demurrers to certain counts, construing them as charging only a combination on a specific date to unite noncompeting patented-machine businesses, without treating later conduct (including leasing practices) as part of the offense.
- The United States sought Supreme Court review under the Criminal Appeals Act of 1907.

## Issues

1. Under the Criminal Appeals Act of 1907, may the Supreme Court review and reject the district court’s construction of what the indictment counts allege?
2. Accepting the district court’s construction that the counts charge only a single-date combination of noncompeting manufacturers of different patented shoe-machinery, does that combination alone state a Sherman Act offense?

## Decision

- The Supreme Court held that, on an appeal under the Criminal Appeals Act, it lacked jurisdiction to review the district court’s interpretation of the indictment’s allegations.
- The Court held that the Criminal Appeals Act of 1907 remained in force and was not repealed by the Judicial Code of 1911, so the appeal was properly before it within that Act’s limits.
- Accepting the indictment construction adopted below, the Court held the charged combination, taken by itself, did not constitute an offense under the Sherman Act.
- The Court affirmed the judgment sustaining the demurrers to the challenged counts.

## Legal Principles

- On appeals under the Criminal Appeals Act of 1907, the Supreme Court cannot re-construe the indictment; it must accept the lower court’s construction of what the counts charge.
- A combination formed for greater efficiency does not necessarily violate the Sherman Act, particularly where the combination unites firms that do not compete with each other.
- Patent rights include the lawful power to exclude others from making the patented article; aggregation of separate patent-based, noncompeting businesses is not automatically an antitrust crime without additional unlawful restraints.
- Absent allegations or proof of the defendants’ share of the relevant commerce, a Sherman Act violation cannot be inferred merely from combining several patent-based businesses when the record does not show that a determinative proportion of trade was concentrated.
- Where the indictment, as construed, charges only the formation of the combination on a specific date, alleged later practices (such as lease forms) are not reviewed as part of that offense.

## Conclusion

The Court affirmed dismissal of certain Sherman Act counts because, within the limited scope of review allowed by the Criminal Appeals Act and accepting the lower court’s construction, a single-date combination of noncompeting patented shoe-machine manufacturers was not, on its face, a criminal restraint of trade, and alleged later leasing practices were outside the charged offense.


United States v. Winslow, 227 U.S. 202 (1913)