“ The respondents-Matthews, a manufacturer of such markers, and five operators of cemeteries (called 'memorial parks') that sell the markers-were charged with having jointly adopted various restrictive devices to prevent, restrict, and discourage sales of markers by the petitioner for installation in the cemeteries. After extensive pretrial discovery, the District Court granted the respondents' motion for summary judgment, concluding that there was no material issue of fact and no evidence of conspiracy. ”

“ We cannot agree that on the record before the District Court a jury could not have found that the respondents had conspired to exclude the petitioner from and monopolize the market for bronze grave markers. As Circuit Judge Craven pointed out in his dissenting opinion, the record disclosed the following conduct on the part of the respondents:
' (1) Despite the unskilled nature of the work, all of the memorial parks refuse to permit the plaintiff to install markers sold by it; all of them insist that the work be done by the cemeteries themselves. ”

“ The affidavit of plaintiff's president states that numerous other incidents of this nature have occurred.
' (6) Defendant Matthews, in its pamphlet 'Modern Cemeteries,' suggests a number of practices which in effect erect competitive barriers to retailers other than the cemeteries themselves. ”