...[the contract] promotes or accidentally restrains competition while its main purpose and chief effect are to foster the trade and increase the business of those who made and operated it, then it is not a contract, combination or conspiracy in restraint of trade within...

...necessary effect is but incidentally or indirectly to restrict competition, while its chief result is to foster the trade and increase the business of those who make and operate it, it is not violative of this law. In the opinion of Chief Justice White, he lays down the standard of...

...necessary effect is but incidentally or indirectly to restrict the commerce, "while its chief result is to foster the trade and increase the business of those who make and operate it, it is not violative of this law." United States v. Standard Oil Co. (CC) 173 Fed. 177, 188; Hopkins...

...indirectly restrict, competition in commerce among the states, while their main purpose and chief effect are to foster the trade and increase the business of those who make and operate them, are . not in restraint of Interstate commerce, or violative of section 1 of the act of July 2,...

...indirectly restrict, competition in commerce among the states, while their main purpose and chief effect are to foster the trade and increase the business of those who make and operate them, do not fall within the inhibition of the Federal antitrust act. In Ellis v. Inman, P. & Co. 65...

...promotes and but remotely and incidentally restricts competition, while Its main and chief effects are to foster the trade and Increase the business of those who make and operate it, then it is not a contract, combination, or conspiracy in restraint of trade within the true interpretation...

...effect is only incident* lly or indirectly to restrict that competition, while its chief result is to foster the trade and increase the business of those who make and operate it, it does not violate the law. But if its necessary effect is to stifle or directly and substantially...

...a combination is but incidentally and indirectly to restrict competition, while its chief result is to foster the trade and increase the business of those who make and operate it, it does not fall under the ban of the law. Union Pacific Coal Co. v. United States (US CCA), 173 Fed....

...necessary effect is but incidentally or indirectly to restrict competition, while its chief result is to foster the trade and increase the business of those who make and operate it, it is not violation of this law." United States v. Standard Oil Company, 173 Fed. 177, 188. " 1f the...

...the sented. effect is but incidental and indirectly to restrict competition while its chief result is to foster the trade and increase the business of those who make and operate it, it is not in violation of the act. A combination between a corporation and its officer or agent in...