*1 trading Independent Lawlor al., et as Corp. Exchange, Poster v. Per Curiam: We with that the motion for sum- However, denied. mary judgment should have been unnecessary of the case made it view, disposition our any issue than for the Court of of exclusive contracts In order that the District Court not the Sherman Act. gave the consideration the Court bound any remaining issues, reaching without vacate grant petition for writ same, and remand the cause judgments, for trial. with whom Frankfurter, Justice Mr. join, and Mr. Justice Harlan Mr. Justice Burton for petitioners. Francis T. Anderson filed dissent. respondent. Louis Nizer for whom Frankfurter, Mr. Justice Burton Justice Mr. dissenting. join, Harlan granted plaintiffs, the motion of The District Court judgment. petitioners here, The Court Appeals, having judgment “[tjrial warranted, remanded the case for of the dis- puted factual issues.” 238 F. 2d 68. This Court also holds that the motion for should grants have been denied the District Court: it cer- tiorari and vacates .of precisely but directs the District Court to do directed to do. that court This is wholly situation unless misconceive the matter. disposition Since Court’s for cer- proper tiorari affects the administration of busi- its own relation and Courts ness as well as the between exposition. the matter deserves *2 thus stated what it called the The Court of involved, it: in the cases there, critical issue before “Was affecting other in these were other cases [there which, a fact parties], genuine issue as to material entry of principles, precluded the well-settled adjudicating defendant-appellant, judgments an unlawful Corporation (‘National’) to be 2d, Having F. at 60-61. monopoly?” 238 that sum- fact, issues of it concluded there were triable and sent not have been entered mary judgment should these This now echoes back for trial. the case judgment should the motion for conclusions: establish their plaintiffs must been denied have claim at trial. lie in the statement puzzle explanation order that doing it is doing

that this Court “[i]n not be bound the consideration . . . .” remaining issues Appeals gave to “law of the concern about the so-called oblique This is an only “law of the case” case.” The agrees on which this Court is the issue of sug- there a Nowhere is Appeals. with the Court when the that gestion the trial will back to goes a claim facts relevant determining restricted only sug- petitioners’ (Indeed, laws. under the by the Court of the new trial directed gestion that trial is open for leave all relevant issues will not some issues indicated that that facts,” while by the trier of “require determination are issues to be determined suggest that these petitioners law.) the trial court as matter sup- argument pages read the thirteen One cannot not be left with convic- petition here and port of the before the Court that the tion it. stated as the Court exclusively of issue phrase far as that case,” so That is “the law “the In the federal courts nothing else. meaning, bogey legal principle. not a law of the case” is laid, has been exposed, ghost that has been opinion for the Court Holmes’ since Anderson, The misuse 444. Messenger v. “law conception in. the of the rule of embodied reject in case,” we had occasion to United Co., 339 Smelting Refining Mining States & applicable here because when 186, 198: “It *3 finally decided. remanded, nothing first was only in Here thereafter was the proceeding whole fieri.” holds, rightly was, decided as this Court thing that was the facts namely, that on decided— go case must to trial. precluded sets aside all the Court granting In the writ of issues other than by consideration contracts under of exclusive “that of the customary for a Act.” Court the Sherman for in back to District Court sending in may issues that arise trial, give guidance to in to avoid needless course of the trial order No doubt a District Court follow and retrials. of a on reversal and remand only adjudication But here the was that of a case. judg on all the relevant issues. We review case be tried the reversal was a consid ments not talk. The basis of opinions Court, of this eration in Times- particularly and more of our recent decisions States, 345 Picayune Publishing Co. v. United Co., E. I. Pont and du de Nemours & has 377. What this Court those observations any passing and not cases, controlling directions are the ,a the District Court. dis- in this case

If of the Court of opinion District Court, controlling rulings of this regarded such decisions disregard is of course not bound to duty fail in its hardly A can of this Court. decisions of this obeying to its Court of if the Court hand, On the other Court command. to do not run counter has views that expressed direct should not decided, this Court what this Court this Court disregard Surely, them. Court to District way on these purport out of its go should not especially stage proceedings, questions at particularly are and more questions abstract, when grant petitions If begin we such fashion. of a with the although opinion some because, perchance, of Appeals that cannot as may remarks have been made dubious am not (I matter of law control the trial of a new fecund source implying here), that such the docket of this Court. of business still further swell will if arises when a Court course, contingency Of ever con- disregards the Appeals ehallengingly ignorantly or the means law as set forth trolling sure. ample here are correction deny petition. would *4 Railway Georgia Central Co. v. Broth Lodge Trainmen, Local erhood of Railroad No. et al.

Per Curiam: is dismissed on suggestion of mootness the writ Upon B. Miller is moot. John ground Wayland M. K. Sullivan Benning Grice and petitioner. respondents.