Moore v. New York Cotton Exchange

270 U.S. 593 (1926)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

The Odd-Lot Cotton Exchange (P) is an organization whose members make contracts for themselves and customers for the future delivery of cotton in lots of not more than 100 nor less than 10 bales. D, which is organized under a special act of the New York Legislature, also makes contracts for the purchase and sale of cotton for future delivery, either for themselves or for customers; such contracts being made only upon open viva voce bidding, between certain hours of the day and in the rooms of the exchange in New York City. Quotations of prices are collected by D, and, under the terms of a written agreement with that exchange, the Western Union company pays $27,500 annually for the privilege of receiving and distributing them throughout the United States, to such persons as D approves. Applicants must agree not to use them in connection with a bucket shop or to give them out to other persons. P applied to receive quotations. D denied the application in that it had ascertained that the P had succeeded another exchange which had been convicted of conducting a bucket shop and that the P had in its membership many members of the convicted exchange and was organized as a cover to enable its members to engage in the same unlawful business. P sued D under federal antitrust law alleging that D had a monopoly over cotton quotations. P sought to enjoin D from refusing to furnish quotations. D counterclaimed that P had received quotes by unauthorized means and was using those quotes to engage in fraud. D sought an injunction. The court granted D’s and denied P's request for an injunction. The Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed. P appealed the injunction in that the dismissal of D's counterclaim was required, because (1) the counterclaim did not arise out of the same transaction that was the subject matter of the suit, and (2) there was no independent basis for jurisdiction. The Supreme Court granted certiorari.