Albertype Co. v. Gust Feist Co.
| Decision Date | 06 January 1909 |
| Citation | 114 S.W. 791 |
| Parties | ALBERTYPE CO. v. GUST FEIST CO. |
| Court | Texas Supreme Court |
Action by the Albertype Company against the Gust Feist Company. From a judgment of the Court of Civil Appeals reversing a judgment for plaintiff (109 S. W. 1139), plaintiff brings error. Judgment of the Court of Civil Appeals reversed, and that of the trial court affirmed.
Geo. Q. McCracken, for plaintiff in error. James B. & Chas. J. Stubbs, for defendant in error.
In the year 1906 the Albertype Company was located in Brooklyn, N. Y., and engaged in preparing and selling souvenir books or albums. The defendant in error was located in Galveston, Tex., and engaged in business there. A. E. Suppiger was the traveling representative of the Albertype Company, and had made a number of sketches of buildings and different objects and views in Galveston. He endeavored to sell to the defendant in error a souvenir album containing the sketches and views, but at first the defendant in error refused to buy. On March 30, 1906, Suppiger, being in Galveston, approached the defendant in error, again proposing to have prepared for him and to sell to him the souvenir album containing the sketches which had before been taken. The Gust Feist Company finally agreed to buy 2,000 copies of the album, and made an order for them in writing, in which it gave particular directions as to the arrangement of the album. A view of the city was taken by Suppiger from the roof of the courthouse, which was at the request of the defendant in error to be placed in the front of the album. The price to be paid was $375. The Albertype Company published the albums, but did not comply in all respects with the directions given by the defendant in error, but they were received by Gust Feist Company, who refused to pay for them, claiming that it had been greatly damaged by the failure of the Albertype Company to comply with the directions in the arrangement of the album. The controversy resulted in a suit in the county court of Galveston county by the Albertype Company against the Gust Feist Company in which judgment was rendered in favor of the plaintiff for $375.
By the contract between Suppiger and the defendant in error the Albertype Company agreed not to sell any of the said souvenir albums in the city of Galveston for one year. Within less time than a year the Albertype Company sold to another dealer in Galveston a souvenir album of the city containing the same sketches and views, but with a different arrangement. In the county court the Gust Feist Company made a motion for a rehearing, and, among other things, for the first time presented the question that the contract was void under the anti-trust laws of 1903 (Laws 1903, p. 119, c. 94). The county court overruled the motion for a rehearing, and appeal was taken to the Court of Civil Appeals of the First District, which reversed the judgment of the county court, and dismissed the case because the contract sued upon was in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
J. R. Watkins Medical Co. v. Holloway
...251 Mo. 2, 157 S. W. 585; Kirkeby & Gundestrup Seed Co. v. White, 168 Mo. App. 626, 153 S. W. 279. In the case of Albertype Co. v. Gust Feist Co., 102 Tex. 219, 114 S. W. 791, the Supreme Court of Texas held that where a contract is one relating to interstate commerce, and therefore under t......
-
International Harvester Co. v. Commonwealth
... ... of the Kansas court was reversed. The same is true of the ... Texas cases. ( Albertype Co. v. Gust Feist Co., 102 ... Tex. 219, 114 S.W. 791; Eclipse P. & M. Co. v. New ... Process ... ...
-
Boehringer v. Yuma County
... ... The ... court thereby erred as to the law ... In ... Albertype Company v. Feist Company, 102 ... Tex. 221, 114 S.W. 791, the court says that: "The ... ...
-
State v. Fairbanks-Morse & Co.
...Texas. Therefore it was interstate commerce which was not subject to the antitrust laws of this state. * * *.' Albertype Co. v. Gust Feist Co., 102 Tex. 219, 114 S.W. 791, 792. But even assuming a sound basis for the further court finding that such interstate dealing was 'only incidental to......
-
Survey of the Texas Antitrust Laws
...Denison Mattress Factory v. Spring-Air Co., 308 F.2d403 (5th Cir, 1962); Albertype v. Gust Feist Co., 102 Tex. 219,114 S.W. 791 (1909). Of course,itshould be realizedthatevenif the Texasantitrustlaws do not apply because no restraint hasbeen formed or practiced in Texas, a restraint in inte......