against the Beechnut Co., for
the same cause having mean-
while been taken to the United
States Supreme Court for
final determination, and fur.
ther proceedings herein having
been suspended to await its
decision, and the Supreme
Court having thereafter de-
cided said Beechnut case and
set forth the law therein in an
opinion (January 3, 1922, 257
U. S. 441, 42 Sup. Ct. 150].

"Now, in view of said deci-
sion, and the lapse of time since
the beginning of this proceed-

ing is hereby ordered, That
the complaint herein be, and
hereby ís, dismissed without
prejudice to the commence-
ment of another proceeding by
the Commission against this
respondent."

Do.
Do.

Do

.do.

.do.

Do.

and flavoring extracts.

Fountain pens..
Collars.
Candy.

141

20

167

The Evans Dollar Pen Co..
United Electric Co.

Fountain pens.
Vacuum cleaners.

..do.

Resale price maintenance: prices, rebates, or
discounts conditioned on exclusive or tying
contracts or dealings in violation of sec. 3 of
the Clayton Act.

Resale price maintenance..

1 For cease and desist order against other respondents in the same case, see 4 F. T. C., p. 466 et seq.

Answer.

Do.

Cases in which orders for discontinuance or dismissal have been entered-Continued.

Cases in which orders for discontinuance or dismissal have been entered-Continued.

Domestic Engineering Co., Inc.,
H. W. Arnold and S. A. Long,
doing business as Arnold &
Long, Distributors; Ashelman
Brothers, Inc.; W. W. Barnett,
doing business as Barnett
Ranch Lighting & Appliance Co.;
P. M. Bratten, doing business as
P. M. Bratten & Co.; H. R.
Colby; Henry R. Colby and M.
A. Bridge, jr., doing business as
C. & B. Electric Co.; Collins &
Moore, Inc.: E. A. Cox and
Hugh J. Cooper, doing business
as Cox & Cooper, Distributors;
E. A. Cox and W. C. Dance,
doing business as Cox & Dance,
Distributors: Ivan L. de Jongh
and W. L. Cochran, doing busi-
ness as de Jongh & Cochran;
The Del-Home Light Co., Inc.;
Domestic Electric Appliance
Co., Inc.; Domestic Electric Co.,
Inc. (incorporated in N. Y.);
The Domestic Electric Co. (in-
corporated in Ga.); The Domes
tic Electric Co. (incorporated in
Ala.); Electric Equipment Co.,
Inc. (incorporated in Okla.);
Electric Equipment Co. (incor-
porated in Iowa); The Electric
Farm Lighting Co., Inc.; George
M. Foos; Paul D. Fuqua,
doing business as East Tenn.
Electric Co.; W. P. Galloway
Co., Inc.; W. F. Gray; The H.
& S. Electric Co., Inc.; Joseph
Herzstam; Home Electric Co.,
Inc.; Home Electric Equipment
Co.; Home Electric Light &
Power Equipment Co., Inc.;
Independent Electric Light &
Power Co., Inc.; E. L. Kruse;

"A complaint having been
issued herein by the Federal
Trade Commission, including
the charge of a violation of
sec. 5 of the Federal Trade
Commission Act declaring
unlawful unfair methods of
competition, by reason of the
respondents, Domestic Engi-
neering Co., Inc., et. al.,
having adopted a policy o
maintaining resale prices
fixed by it, and the respond-
ents having answered: and
an order of the Commission
in a proceeding brought by
it against the Beechnut Co.,
for the same cause having
meanwhile been taken to the
United States Supreme Court
for final determination, and
further proceedings herein
having been suspended to
await its decision, and the
Supreme Court having there-
after decided said Beechnut
case and set forth the law
therein in an opinion. Jan.
3, 1922, 257 U. S. 441; 42 Sup.
Ct. 150.]

"Now, in view of said
decision, and the lapse of
time since the beginning of
this proceeding.

"It is hereby ordered, That
the complaint herein be, and
hereby is, dismissed without
prejudice to the commence-
ment of another proceeding
by the Commission against
these respondents.'

M. L. Lasley; S. O. Lindeman,
doing business as Home Light
& Power Co.; Modern Appliance
Co., Inc.; W. H. Moulton; J. J.
Munsell; Claude Nolan; R. E.
Parsons; J. J. Pocock; Pringle
Matthews Co., Inc.; G. F. Scho-
nek; Stover Co., Inc.; Subur-
ban Electric Development Co.;
Inc., Suburban Lighting Corp.;
R. F. Trant; R. F. Trant and
J. L. Conover, doing business as
Trant & Conover; E. L. Un-
capher Co., Inc.; Charles E.
Wagner, Inc.; and E. H. Walker.
The Heller & Merz Co...

Midvale Steel & Ordnance Co.,
Republic Iron & Steel Co., and
Inland Steel Co

Answer and trial.. No reasons assigned.

"A formal statement having
been filed with the Commis-
sion by Chadbourne, Bab-
bitt, and Wallace, attorneys
for the respondents, stating
that the proposed merger,
consolidation, and combina-
tion charged in the complaint
in this proceeding had been
entirely abandoned and that
all acts for the consumma-
tion of such merger, consoli-
dation, and combination had
been discontinued; It is or-
dered, That the complaint
herein be, and the same is
hereby, dismissed."

No reasons assigned.

New York Hosiery Works..

556

Do.

Respondent is not now en-
gaged in business.
Do,

No reasons assigned.

4466

557

Morris & Co..

Wilson & Co., Inc........

The Bayer Co., Inc...

662 Deep Wells Oil Co., George B. Mechem & Co., and George B. Mechem.