▁Committee . ▁Mc D onn ell ▁and ▁Miller ▁planned ▁to ▁use ▁the ▁response ▁to ▁show ▁that ▁one ▁of ▁their ▁compet itors ▁( H ydro level ▁Cor p ) ▁was ▁s elling ▁a ▁device ▁not ▁in ▁comp liance ▁with ▁the ▁AS ME ▁B P V ▁Code . ▁ ▁Un known ▁to ▁AS ME ' s ▁leadership ▁the ▁volunte er ▁chairman ▁of ▁the ▁AS ME ▁committee ▁wrote ▁a ▁response ▁to ▁Mc D onn ell ▁and ▁Miller ' s ▁inqu iry ▁that ▁was ▁later ▁used ▁by ▁a ▁Mc D onn ell ▁and ▁Miller ▁sales men ▁as ▁proof ▁of ▁H ydro level ' s ▁non comp liance . ▁Sub sequently , ▁according ▁to ▁H ydro level , ▁it ▁never ▁acquired ▁sufficient ▁market ▁pen etr ation ▁for ▁sust aining ▁business , ▁and ▁eventually ▁went ▁bank rupt . ▁ ▁H ydro level ▁su ed ▁Mc D onn ell ▁and ▁Miller , ▁the ▁Hart ford ▁Ste am ▁Bo iler ▁In spe ction ▁and ▁In sur ance ▁Company ▁and ▁AS ME ▁arg uing ▁that ▁two ▁AS ME ▁sub comm ittee ▁members ▁acted ▁not ▁only ▁in ▁the ▁self - inter est ▁of ▁their ▁companies , ▁but ▁also ▁in ▁viol ation ▁of ▁the ▁Sh erman ▁Anti - Tr ust ▁Act . ▁ ▁Op in ion ▁of ▁the ▁Court ▁ ▁The ▁Supreme ▁Court ▁concluded ▁that ▁the ▁association ▁was ▁li able ▁even ▁though ▁the ▁AS ME ▁leadership ▁ 1 ) ▁was ▁una ware ▁of ▁the ▁action ▁the ▁volunte er ▁chairman ▁took , ▁ 2 ) ▁had ▁not ▁approved ▁the ▁action , ▁ 3 ) ▁and