that, the complaint is legally sufficient. Griffin could have had no doubt that his wife was suing in the District of Columbia for unpaid instalments of alimony which New York, as part of the divorce proceedings, had decreed in her favor. Upon the record before us the petitioner disclaimed liability for these arrears on grounds which do not save him. We ought not to deny liability flowing from a live judgment by assuming that the petitioner has better grounds for avoiding liability than those that he has already asserted. If, perchance, he could satisfy the district court that he has failed to set up a valid defense through a reasonable misconception of what was the essence of his wife's suit, namely a suit for arrears of alimony which were her due, it would not be casting an unreasonable burden on the petitioner to require him to move to set aside the judgment on appropriate grounds. BIGELOW ET AL. v. RKO RADIO PICTURES, INC. ET AL. CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT. No. 444. Argued February 7, 1946. Decided February 25, 1946. 1. Petitioners owned a motion picture theatre in Chicago. Some of the respondents were distributors of motion picture films; others owned or controlled motion picture theatres in Chicago. Petitioners sued respondents under the Sherman and Clayton Acts to recover treble damages. The gist of the complaint was that, by reason of an unlawful conspiracy of the respondents, petitioners were prevented from securing pictures for exhibition in their theatre until after the preferred exhibitors had been able to show them in earlier and more desirable runs, and that petitioners were thus discriminated against in the distribution of feature films in favor of competing theatres owned or controlled by some of the respondents. It appeared that, after the introduction in 1937 of the practice of showing double features, petitioners were no longer able to secure films which had not had a prior showing. Petitioners charged that in consequence of respondents' unlawful acts they had suffered a loss of earnings in excess of $120,000 during the 5-year period from 1937 to 1942. Two classes of evidence were introduced by petitioners to establish their damage. One was a comparison of earnings during the 5-year period of petitioners' theatre with those of a comparable theatre of the respondents, which showed a difference of nearly $116,000 in favor of the latter. The second was a comparison of the receipts of petitioners' theatre for the five years following July 1937 with the receipts for the four years immediately preceding, which showed a decline aggregating more than $125,000. The jury returned a verdict for petitioners in the sum of $120,000, and the trial court gave judgment for treble that amount. The circuit court of appeals reversed on the sole ground that the evidence of damage was insufficient for submission to the jury, and directed entry of judgment for respondents non obstante veredicto. Held that the evidence was sufficient to sustain the verdict for the petitioners. Pp. 253-254, 266. (a) The evidence was ample to support a just and reasonable inference that petitioners were damaged by respondents' acts. P. 266. (b) Whatever restraints respondents' distribution system may have imposed, and whether the policy later adopted of showing double features was or was not itself a product of an unlawful conspiracy, petitioners were entitled, as of right, to continue to purchase and show films which had not had prior showing, free of restraints of the unlawful distribution system. P. 262. (c) A fair measure of the damage to that right of the petitioners was the loss of petitioners' admission receipts resulting from the operation of the unlawful distributing system. Pp. 262-263. (d) The fact that, by reason of respondent's tortious acts in maintaining the discriminatory distribution system, the petitioners were unable to prove what their earnings would have been under freely competitive conditions, did not preclude a verdict for the petitioners. P. 263. (e) The comparison of petitioners' receipts before and after respondents' unlawful action impinged on petitioners' business afforded a sufficient basis for the jury's computation of the damage, where respondents' wrongful action had prevented petitioners from making any more precise proof of the amount of the damages. P. 266. 2. A jury may not render a verdict based on speculation or guesswork, even where the defendant by his own wrong has precluded a more precise computation of damages. But the jury may make 251 Opinion of the Court. a just and reasonable estimate of the damage based on relevant data and render its verdict accordingly. In such circumstances juries are allowed to act on probable and inferential as well as upon direct and positive proof. Story Parchment Co. v. Paterson Co., 282 U. S. 555; Eastman Kodak Co. v. Southern Photo Co., 273 U.S. 359. P. 264. 3. Elementary conceptions of justice and public policy require that the wrongdoer shall bear the risk of the uncertainty in computing damages which his wrong has created. P. 265. 150 F. 2d 877, reversed. From a judgment for the plaintiffs in a suit for damages under the antitrust acts, the defendants appealed. The circuit court of appeals reversed. 150 F. 2d 877. This Court granted certiorari. 326 U. S. 709. Reversed, p. 266. Thomas C. McConnell argued the cause for petitioners. With him on the brief was Hubert Van Hook. Edward F. McClennen argued the cause for respondents. With him on the brief was Miles G. Seeley. Solicitor General McGrath, Assistant Attorney General Berge and Charles H. Weston filed a brief for the United States, as amicus curiae, in support of petitioners. MR. CHIEF JUSTICE STONE delivered the opinion of the Court. Petitioners brought this suit in the District Court for Northern Illinois under §§ 1, 2 and 7 of the Sherman Act (26 Stat. 209), and §§ 4 and 16 of the Clayton Act (38 Stat. 731), 15 U. S. C. §§ 1, 2, 15, and 26, for an injunction and to recover treble damages. Petitioners, who are owners of the Jackson Park motion picture theatre in Chicago, alleged by their bill of complaint that respondents, some of whom are distributors of moving picture films and some of whom own or control moving picture theatres in Chicago, entered into a conspiracy which continued from Opinion of the Court. 327 U.S. some date prior to November 1, 1936 to the date the suit was brought, July 28, 1942, pursuant to which film was distributed among moving picture theatres in the Chicago district in such a manner that theatres owned by some of the conspirators were enabled to secure and show feature pictures in advance of independent exhibitors, not affiliated with respondents, such as petitioners. The gist of the complaint is that, by reason of the conspiracy, petitioners were prevented from securing pictures for exhibition in their theatre until after the preferred exhibitors had been able to show them in the earlier and more desirable runs, and that petitioners have thus been discriminated against in the distribution of feature films in favor of competing theatres owned or controlled by some of the respondents. Petitioners charged that in consequence they had been subjected to loss of earnings in excess of $120,000 during the five year period from July 27, 1937 to July 27, 1942. The matter of the injunction was reserved and the case went to trial solely on the question of damages. The jury returned a verdict for $120,000 in petitioners' favor. The trial court gave judgment for treble that amount, as prescribed by § 4 of the Clayton Act. The Circuit Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reversed on the sole ground that the evidence of damage was not sufficient for submission to the jury, and directed the entry of a judgment for respondents non obstante veredicto. 150 F. 2d 877. We granted certiorari, 326 U. S. 709, because of the importance of the problem presented. Respondents do not now assail the jury's verdict, so far as it found an unlawful conspiracy to maintain a discriminatory system of distribution. The sole question for decision here is whether the evidence of damage is sufficient to support the verdict. As the jury returned a general verdict, the nature and extent of the unlawful conspiracy must be ascertained in the light of the instruc tions given to the jury, taking that view of the evidence most favorable to petitioners. Petitioners have been since November 1, 1936 the owners in partnership of the Jackson Park Theatre, located on the south side of Chicago. Respondents RKO Radio Pictures, Inc., Loew's, Inc., Twentieth Century-Fox Film Corporation, Paramount Pictures, Inc., and Vitagraph, Inc., are distributors of motion picture films. Respondent RKO also owns two large first-run theatres in the Chicago Loop. Respondent Balaban & Katz Corporation is a motion picture exhibitor, which operates a chain of some fifty theatres in Chicago and its suburbs, including the Maryland Theatre and others on the south side of Chicago which compete with the petitioners' Jackson Park Theatre. Balaban & Katz is a subsidiary of Paramount. Respondent Warner Bros. Circuit Management Corporation is an exhibitor which operates more than twenty theatres in Chicago, including several on Chicago's south side which also compete with petitioners' theatre. Warner Bros. Circuit Management Corporation and Vitagraph are subsidiaries of Warner Bros. Pictures, Inc. Respondent Warner Bros. Theatres, Inc., is also affiliated with Warner Bros. Pictures, Inc. and holds title to certain of the Warner theatres. There was evidence from which the jury could have found that respondents maintained in the Chicago district, by a conspiracy among themselves, a discriminatory system of distributing motion pictures for showing in successive weeks of release. The release system, as described in the complaint, and shown by the proof, operated substantially as follows: Respondent distributors rent their copyrighted product to motion picture theatres for exhibition to the public. Rental contracts between distributors and exhibitors undertake to furnish films to the exhibitors for stipulated rentals, and provide for the "playing position" in which the motion picture theatre is to exhibit the films relative to the "playing position" of other |