Norman Tobacco & Candy Co. v. Gillette Safety Razor Co., No. 18603.
| Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (5th Circuit) |
| Writing for the Court | TUTTLE, , and CAMERON and WISDOM, Circuit |
| Citation | 295 F.2d 362 |
| Parties | NORMAN TOBACCO & CANDY COMPANY, Inc., Appellant, v. GILLETTE SAFETY RAZOR COMPANY et al., Appellees. |
| Docket Number | No. 18603. |
| Decision Date | 15 September 1961 |
295 F.2d 362 (1961)
NORMAN TOBACCO & CANDY COMPANY, Inc., Appellant,
v.
GILLETTE SAFETY RAZOR COMPANY et al., Appellees.
No. 18603.
United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit.
September 15, 1961.
Harry B. Cohen, Birmingham, Ala., for appellant.
Douglas Arant, John J. Coleman, Jr., Birmingham, Ala., J. Vernon Patrick, Jr., Robert H. Walston, White, Bradley, Arant, All & Rose, Birmingham, Ala., of counsel, for appellees.
Before TUTTLE, Chief Judge, and CAMERON and WISDOM, Circuit Judges.
CAMERON, Circuit Judge.
This appeal presents the question whether the Court below erred in granting summary judgment in favor of Gillette Safety Razor Company and the Gillette Company, Appellees, against Norman Tobacco & Candy Company, Inc., Appellant. Appellees' motion which the District Court granted was based upon
The Appellee filed a Motion for Summary Judgment based upon both grounds supra. The District Court granted the motion on the limitations issue, holding that the action had been barred by the Alabama Statute of Limitations of one year. The Judge of that Court wrote an excellent opinion, now reported in 197 F. Supp. 333. We refer to that case for the Statement of Facts and we adopt Judge Grooms' opinion as the opinion of this Court and hold that, on the basis of the reasoning of that opinion, the Court correctly granted the Appellee's Motion for Summary Judgment based upon the limitations ground.
We are constrained to hold also that the present action is barred by the judgment in the companion case supra, referred to in the record and briefs as the contract case. The case now before us and the contract case were filed at the same time and in the same court. This case was running its course through the series of complaints, amended complaints, motions to dismiss and finally the Summary Judgment appealed from, at the same time the contract case was moving toward a jury trial which resulted in a verdict in favor of the Safety Razor Company and against Appellant Norman. The facts of the contract case are fully set forth in the opinion of this court.2 A comparison of the facts there will show that the two cases involve only one claim or right of action.
For a period extending from about October 30, 1946 to about August 22, 1949, Norman was operating in Birmingham, Jefferson County, Alabama, a wholesale business of distributing to retailers tobacco, candy and sundry products, including razor blades and shaving products,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Air Line Pilots Ass'n Intern. v. TEXAS INTERN. AIR., Civ. A. No. H-81-2200
...— is the same. Whether contractual versus statutory claims are asserted, Norman Tobacco & Candy Co. v. Gillette Safety Razor Co., 295 F.2d 362 (5th Cir.1961), or where claims arise under separate statutory schemes, Harrington v. Vandalia-Butler Board of Education, 649 F.2d 434 (6th Cir.1981......
-
Leh v. General Petroleum Corporation, No. 18333.
...Cir. 1961, 293 F.2d 802; Norman Tobacco & Candy Co. v. Gillette Safety Razor Co., N.D.Ala.1960, 197 F. Supp. 333, affirmed, 5 Cir. 1961, 295 F. 2d 362. 8 This is copied from Reporter's Transcript of Pre-Trial Hearing in Chambers, held January 10, 1958, in "Daniel O. McLean, et al. v. Paramo......
-
Neeld v. National Hockey League, Civ. No. 77-32.
...U.S. at 321, 47 S.Ct. 600; Herendeen v. Champion Intern. Corp., supra, at 134; Norman Tobacco & Candy Co. v. Gillette Safety Razor Co., 295 F.2d 362, 364 (5th Cir. 1961). Such is not the case here with respect to counts I and II. I find that plaintiff in counts I and II of the instant compl......
-
Salveson v. Western States Bankcard Ass'n, No. C-81-1707-WWS
...pendent jurisdiction, could have asserted those claims in the federal action);19 Norman Tobacco & Candy Co. v. Gillette Safety Razor Co., 295 F.2d 362 (5th Cir. 1961) (earlier judgment in contract action barred antitrust action based on same alleged refusal to 525 F. Supp. 583 With these pr......
-
Hanover Shoe, Inc. v. United Shoe Machinery Corp., No. 15626
...86 S.Ct. 69, 15 L.Ed.2d 74 (1965); Norman Tobacco & Candy Co., Inc. v. Gillette Safety Razor Co., 197 F.Supp. 333 (N.D.Ala.1960), aff'd, 295 F.2d 362 (5 Cir. 1961); Emich Motors Corp. v. General Motors Corp., 1955 Trade Cases ¶ 67,960 (N.D.Ill.1955), aff'd, 229 F.2d 714 (7 Cir. 1966). See, ......
-
Hayes v. Solomon, No. 77-1062
...Inc. claim. We do not agree. Initially, this Court's decision in Norman Tobacco & Candy Company, Inc. v. Gillette Safety Razor Company, 295 F.2d 362 (5th Cir. 1961), Affirming, 197 F.Supp. 333 (N.D.Ala.1960), seems to support defendants' theory. There the plaintiff-wholesaler brought a civi......
-
Air Line Pilots Ass'n Intern. v. TEXAS INTERN. AIR., Civ. A. No. H-81-2200
...— is the same. Whether contractual versus statutory claims are asserted, Norman Tobacco & Candy Co. v. Gillette Safety Razor Co., 295 F.2d 362 (5th Cir.1961), or where claims arise under separate statutory schemes, Harrington v. Vandalia-Butler Board of Education, 649 F.2d 434 (6th Cir.1981......
-
Aerojet-General Corp. v. Askew, AEROJET-GENERAL
...v. Air Line Pilots Association, 5 Cir., 1968,390 F.2d 199, 203; Norman Tobacco & Candy Co. v. Gillette Safety Razor Co., 5 Cir., 1961, 295 F.2d 362, 363--364; 1B Moore's Federal Practice 0.401, at 12--13. Our most recent discussion of the tests for determining whether the substance of two a......