213 U.S. 347 (1909)
The defendant, a New Jersey corporation organized in 1899, had bought the property and business of several of its previous competitors with provision against their resuming the trade.1 It made contracts with others regulating the quantity to be purchased and the price to be paid.2 It acquired a controlling amount of stock in still others.3 All of this was done with the intent to prevent competition and to control and monopolize the banana trade.4
It also organized a selling company of which it held the stock.5 By agreement the company sold at fixed prices all the bananas of the combining parties.6
In 1903 McConnell started a banana plantation in Panama, then part of the United States of Colombia.7 He began to build a railway which would afford his only means of export.8 Both actions were in accordance with the laws of the United States of Colombia.9 The defendant notified McConnell that he must either combine or stop.10 Two months later the governor of Panama recommended to his national government that Costa Rica be allowed to administer the territory through which the railroad was to run.11 In November 1903 Panama revolted and became an independent republic declaring its boundary to be that settled by the award.12 In June 1904 the plaintiff, an Alabama corporation organized in 1904, bought out McConnell and went on with the work as it had a right to do under the laws of Panama.13 But in July Costa Rican soldiers and officials seized a part of the plantation and a cargo of supplies and have held them ever since and stopped the construction and operation of the plantation and railway.14
In August, one Astua, by ex parte proceedings, got a judgment from a Costa Rican court declaring the plantation to be his.15 Although the proceedings were not within the jurisdiction of Costa Rica and were contrary to its laws and void, agents of the defendant then bought the lands from Astua.16 The plaintiff has tried to induce the government of Costa Rica to withdraw its soldiers. The plaintiff also has tried to persuade the United States to interfere but has been thwarted in both by the defendant and has failed. As a result of the defendant's acts the plaintiff has been deprived of the use of the plantation and the railway and the plantation and supplies have been injured.17
The Circuit Court dismissed the complaint upon motion as not setting forth a cause of action.18 This judgment was affirmed by the Circuit Court of Appeals.19 The case then was brought to this court by writ of error.20
Whether the Act to Protect Trade against Monopolies applies to acts done outside the jurisdiction of the United States?21
No. The acts causing the damage were done outside the jurisdiction of the United States and within that of other states.24 The defendant notified McConnell in Panama, and Costa Rican soldiers and officials seized the plantation and supplies in July after the plaintiff had purchased McConnell's interests in June 1904.25
The Act to Protect Trade against Monopolies does not apply to the defendant's acts done in Panama or Costa Rica.26
Related opinions on this issue
Justice Harlan concurred in the result of the majority opinion without authoring a separate statement.27 His concurrence in the result reflects agreement with the Court's determination that the complaint failed to allege facts sufficient to state a claim under the Act to Protect Trade against Monopolies for the defendant's alleged monopolistic activities. This position aligns with the holding that the extraterritorial acts and the involvement of foreign sovereign actions did not create liability under the federal statute.28
By joining only the result, Justice Harlan endorsed the affirmance of the dismissal of the action.29
Whether acts not constituting torts by the law of the place where done can support a claim under the Act?30
No. The acts of the Costa Rican government in seizing and holding the plantation are not alleged to have been without the consent of the government and must be taken to have been done by its order.33 The plaintiff has been deprived of the use of the plantation and railway as a result of these sovereign acts.34
Acts not constituting torts by the law of the place where done cannot support a claim under the Act.35
Whether the intervention of a foreign sovereign in seizing property bars a claim for damages arising from that seizure?36
The fundamental reason why persuading a sovereign power to do this or that cannot be a tort is that it is a contradiction in terms to say that within its jurisdiction it is unlawful to persuade a sovereign power to bring about a result that it declares by its conduct to be desirable and proper.37
Yes. The intervention of Costa Rica, whose soldiers and officials seized the plantation and supplies and whose court issued a judgment to Astua from whom the defendant's agents bought the lands, bars the claim because the government of Costa Rica remained in possession down to the bringing of the suit.38
The intervention of a foreign sovereign in seizing property bars a claim for damages arising from that seizure.39