Pennsylvania Ry. Co. v. Interstate Commerce Commission, 66 F. (2d) 37 (3d C.A. (1933)) -- summary under Paragraph 108(2)(b)

By dwpv, 28 November, 2015

An acquisition by one railroad company of shares in another railroad company was found not to be contrary to the Clayton Act by virtue of an exemption which stated that "this section shall not apply to corporations purchasing such stock solely for investment". Davis C.J. stated (p. 39):

The word 'investment', as the Commission said, 'is one of broad application, including in its various uses purchases of practically every kind and description and for every purpose.' One of these purposes is the purchase of property for the sake of the direct return which can be realized from such property. This is the definition to which the Commission restricted the word in this case, but it is not primarily a technical word and has other meanings. It ordinarily signifies the use of money to purchase property, personal or real, for any purpose from which income or profit is expected, presently or in the future, speculatively or permanently.

Topics and taglines
Words and phrases
d7 import status
Drupal 7 entity type
Node
Drupal 7 entity ID
333407
Extra import data
{
"field_legacy_header": "<a id=\"Pennsylvania\"></a><strong><em>Pennsylvania Ry. Co. v. Interstate Commerce Commission</em></strong>, 66 F. (2d) 37 (3d C.A. (1933))",
"field_override_history": false,
"field_sid": "",
"field_topic_category": "seealso"
}