American Banana Co. v. United Fruit Co.
213 U.S. 347 (1909)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
United States antitrust laws do not apply to conduct occurring entirely outside of U.S. territory. Furthermore, under the act of state doctrine, U.S. courts will not adjudicate the legality of acts performed by a foreign government within its own sovereign territory.
Facts:
- Before 1904, United Fruit Company, a New Jersey corporation, engaged in various actions to monopolize the banana trade, including acquiring competitors and fixing prices.
- In 1903, a man named McConnell started a competing banana plantation and railway in Panama, which was then part of Colombia.
- United Fruit Company warned McConnell that he must either combine with them or cease his operations.
- In June 1904, American Banana Company, an Alabama corporation, purchased McConnell's business and continued his work on the plantation and railway.
- In July 1904, Costa Rican soldiers and officials, allegedly instigated by United Fruit, seized a portion of American Banana's plantation and supplies, stopping all operations.
- Agents of United Fruit subsequently purchased the seized lands from a third party who had obtained a judgment from a Costa Rican court.
- The government of Costa Rica remained in de facto possession of the seized property at the time the suit was filed.
Procedural Posture:
- American Banana Co. filed suit against United Fruit Co. in the U.S. Circuit Court for the Southern District of New York, seeking threefold damages under the Sherman Act.
- The Circuit Court dismissed the complaint on a motion, finding that it did not set forth a cause of action.
- American Banana Co. appealed the dismissal to the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
- The Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment of dismissal.
- The Supreme Court of the United States granted a writ of error to review the appellate court's judgment.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the Sherman Antitrust Act apply to actions taken by a U.S. corporation within a foreign sovereign nation, particularly when the alleged damages result from the official acts of that foreign government?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Justice Holmes
No, the Sherman Antitrust Act does not apply to the actions alleged because the conduct causing the injury occurred outside the jurisdiction of the United States and involved the sovereign acts of a foreign government. The Court reasoned that legislation is presumptively territorial and does not apply abroad unless Congress clearly indicates otherwise. The general and almost universal rule is that the legality of an act must be determined by the law of the country where it was done. Furthermore, the act of state doctrine prevents U.S. courts from questioning the validity of a foreign sovereign's acts within its own territory. Since the seizure of the plantation was carried out by Costa Rican officials and ratified by their government, it is a sovereign act that cannot be challenged in a U.S. court. Persuading a sovereign to act cannot be a tort, because the sovereign's subsequent action makes the result lawful within that jurisdiction.
Analysis:
This case established a strong, early precedent for two significant legal principles: the presumption against the extraterritorial application of U.S. statutes and the act of state doctrine. It severely limited the reach of the Sherman Act, suggesting that conduct abroad was beyond its scope, a position that has been significantly narrowed by subsequent case law. However, its formulation of the act of state doctrine remains a foundational concept, barring U.S. courts from passing judgment on the public acts of a foreign government within its own territory, thereby protecting judicial deference to executive branch foreign policy.
Unlock the full brief for American Banana Co. v. United Fruit Co.