Timken Roller Bearing Co. v. United States
United States Supreme Court
341 U.S. 593, 71 S. Ct. 971, 95 L. Ed. 1199 (1951)
- Written by Elliot Stern, JD
Facts
In 1909, Timken Roller Bearing Co. (Timken) (defendant), a manufacturer of antifriction bearings, entered into a series of agreements with another manufacturer, which later became known as British Timken. Under the agreement, Timken and British Timken divided between them the international market for the sale of antifriction bearings. Timken later purchased 30 percent of British Timken stock and organized French Timken, whose stock was wholly owned by Timken and another individual with whom Timken worked in partnership. Timken, British Timken, and French Timken continued to enter into agreements coordinating the manufacture and sale of antifriction bearings between the companies and permitting the use of the trademark “Timken” by British Timken and French Timken. The United States (plaintiff) brought a civil action against Timken on grounds that these agreements violated the Sherman Act. The district court found that Timken and its partners to the agreements had divided the territory in which each would operate, fixed prices on products sold in territory allocated to another of the companies, worked together to eliminate competition in each other’s territories, and operated as a cartel to restrict imports and exports to and from the United States. The district court held that Timken had violated the Sherman Act and entered a comprehensive decree to prevent future violations. Timken appealed the ruling to the United States Supreme Court.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Black, J.)
Dissent (Frankfurter, J.)
Dissent (Jackson, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 899,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 47,000 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.



