Anheuser-Busch Brewing Ass'n v. Houck
| Decision Date | 18 April 1895 |
| Citation | 30 S.W. 869 |
| Parties | ANHEUSER-BUSCH BREWING ASS'N v. HOUCK et al. |
| Court | Texas Supreme Court |
Action by the Anheuser-Busch Brewing Association against Houck & Dieter for an account. From a judgment in favor of defendants, plaintiff appealed. Reversed by court of civil appeals (27 S. W. 692), and defendants bring error. Affirmed.
W. M. Coldwell, Edwards & Neill, and Hague, Falvey & Davis, for plaintiffs in error. Davis, Beall & Kemp, for defendant in error.
We concur in the conclusions of the court of civil appeals in this case, except in one particular; and, in view of the well-considered opinion of that court, we deem it unnecessary to discuss any of the questions involved, except that upon which we differ. We think the contract between the plaintiffs in error (Houck & Dieter) and Hawley and Schloss shows upon its face a combination such as is prohibited by the act to define trusts, etc., approved March 30, 1889. For the reasons given by the court of civil appeals, we also agree with them in holding that the act is not in violation of the constitution. It follows that the trial court erred in not instructing the jury that the combination was unlawful, and that Houck & Dieter could not recover of the plaintiff, on their cross action, for a breach of a contract, the performance of which would have aided them in carrying out the unlawful enterprise. It may be that the decisions of this court establish the proposition that mere knowledge on part of the seller that the goods sold are to be used for an unlawful purpose will not prevent his recovering their price. As we view the case before us, it is not necessary to decide that question. The contract between the brewing company and Houck & Dieter bound the company to sell to the latter, and to sell to no other dealer in the city of El Paso. It is clear, we think, that these stipulations were well calculated to aid Houck & Dieter and their associates in effecting the purpose of the unlawful combination. They gave the combination a monopoly of the sale in the city of El Paso of the product of the plaintiff's brewery, and materially assisted the parties to the illegal contract in carrying out their object of controlling the market for sale of beer in bulk in that city. Therefore, in our opinion, the case of the plaintiff, if in fact its agent renewed its contract, knowing of the existence of the combination, is not...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Duluth Board of Trade
... ... of the power to regulate commerce was sustained in the Joint Traffic Assn. Case, 171 U. S. 505, 19 Sup. Ct. 25, 43 L. Ed. 259. It embraces only ... 651, 27 L. R. A. 298), a combination to control the price of beer (Houck v. Anheuser-Busch, ... Page 539 ... 88 Tex. 184, 30 S. W. 869; Nester ... ...
-
State v. Duluth Bd. of Trade
...Ill. 166, 39 N. E. 651,27 L. R. A. 298), a combination to control the price of beer ( Houck v. Anheuser Busch Brewing Co., 88 Tex. 184, 30 S. W. 869;Nester v. Continental Brewing Co., 161 Pa. 473, 29 Atl. 102, 24 L. R. A. 247, 41 Am. St. Rep. 894), a combination to fix the price of meats (S......
-
Knight & Jillson Co. v. Miller
...etc., to prevent free competition. Whether an agreement is in restraint of trade is a question of law for the court. Houck v. Anheuser, etc., Co., 88 Tex. 184, 30 S. W. 869;Cohen v. Berlin Co., 166 N. Y. 292, 59 N. E. 906. An act, which is simply declarative of the common law, but imposes c......
-
Knight & Jillson Co. v. Miller
... ... United States ... (1902), 115 F. 610, 53 C. C. A. 256; Heim Brewing ... Co. v. Belinder (1902), 97 Mo.App. 64, 71 S.W ... 691; San ... restraint of trade is a question of law for the court ... Houck v. Anheuser-Busch Brewing Assn ... (1895), 88 Tex. 184, 30 S.W. 869; ... ...