Central Ice Cream Co. v. Golden Rod Ice Cream Co.
| Decision Date | 05 April 1961 |
| Docket Number | No. 13099.,13099. |
| Parties | CENTRAL ICE CREAM COMPANY Plaintiff-Appellant, v. GOLDEN ROD ICE CREAM COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit |
William C. Wines, Chicago, Ill., for appellant.
Grover D. Rose, Claude A. Roth, Chicago, Ill., for appellee.
Before SCHNACKENBERG, KNOCH and CASTLE, Circuit Judges.
Central Ice Cream Company, plaintiff-appellant, prosecutes this appeal from the judgment order of the District Court granting judgment for the defendant in an action brought by Central against Golden Rod Ice Cream Company, defendant-appellee. Central seeks treble damages for unlawful price discrimination. Following our remandment of this cause on a previous appeal, Central Ice Cream Co. v. Golden Rod Ice Cream Co., 7 Cir., 257 F.2d 417, the District Court severed the issue of liability from the issue of damages and the issue of liability was tried by the court on a stipulation. The District Court's findings of fact and conclusions of law appear in its opinion reported at 184 F.Supp. 312.
This appeal presents no dispute as to the facts. Central contends that the District Court erred as a matter of law. Inasmuch as the facts involved are set forth in detail in the District Court's opinion we do not attempt to restate them in full.
Central relies for relief exclusively upon Section 2 of the Clayton Act Section 1 of the Robinson-Patman Act, 15 U.S.C.A. § 13(a-f).
Central and Golden Rod are competing manufacturers and vendors of ice cream to retailers in the Chicago area. Both operate ice cream manufacturing plants in Illinois. Each uses ingredients, principally butterfat, coming from milk originating in Wisconsin and Illinois. Golden Rod purchased all butterfat it used in the manufacture of ice cream from brokers located in Chicago and a substantial part came from milk originating in Wisconsin and Illinois. Central sells 99.975% of its ice cream to Illinois retailers and .025% to Indiana retailers. Golden Rod sells and delivers its ice cream and other frozen desserts solely within the State of Illinois; it has no ice cream business of any kind or nature outside of Illinois. Golden Rod does sell and deliver ice cream to Fred Harvey, a corporation. The ice cream sold and delivered to Harvey is of different and higher grade and quality than that sold by Golden Rod to its other customers and is made to Harvey's special formula. All the sales and deliveries to Harvey are made at Chicago. A small portion of the total sales Golden Rod makes to Harvey is resold by Harvey to a railroad and used in the dining cars of the railroad operating in interstate commerce.1
The District Court found and concluded, inter alia, that there was no price discrimination in the course of interstate commerce. In so far as the finding rests on factual considerations we are of the opinion that it is fully supported by the record and free from error. We are convinced that in reaching the legal conclusion it did the District Court applied the correct legal criteria.
The statute upon which Central predicates liability, 15 U.S.C.A. § 13(a), provides:
"It shall be unlawful for any person engaged in commerce, in the course of such commerce, either directly or indirectly, to discriminate in price between different purchasers of commodities of like grade and quality, where either or any of the purchases involved in such discrimination are in commerce, where such commodities are sold for use, consumption, or resale within the United States * * * and where the effect of such...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Liquilux Gas Services of Ponce, Inc. v. Tropical Gas Company
...Corp., 309 F.2d 943 (6th Cir. 1962), cert. denied, 373 U.S. 934, 83 S.Ct. 1554, 10 L.Ed.2d 691 (1963); Central Ice Cream Co. v. Golden Rod Ice Cream Co., 287 F.2d 265 (7th Cir. 1961), cert. denied, 368 U.S. 829, 82 S.Ct. 50, 7 L.Ed.2d 32 (1961); Atlas Bldg. Products Co. v. Diamond Block & G......
-
Zenith Radio Corp. v. Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co.
...despite their common source. In Central Ice Cream Co. v. Golden Rod Ice Cream Co., 184 F.Supp. 312, 319 (N.D.Ill.1960), aff'd, 287 F.2d 265 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 368 U.S. 829, 82 S.Ct. 50, 7 L.Ed.2d 32 (1961), the court held that two types of ice cream, one of which was richer in butter......
-
Bowen v. New York News, Inc.
...309 F.2d 943, 946 (6th Cir. 1962), cert. denied, 373 U.S. 934, 83 S.Ct. 1554, 10 L.Ed.2d 691 (1963); Central Ice Cream Co. v. Golden Rod Ice Cream Co., 287 F.2d 265, 267 (7th Cir. 1961). It specifically requires that the discriminator be "engaged in commerce", that the discrimination be "in......
-
Hiram Walker, Incorporated v. A & S TROPICAL, INC.
...Oil Co. v. Federal Trade Commission, 340 U.S. 231, 236-237, 71 S.Ct. 240, 243, 95 L.Ed. 239 (1951); Central Ice Cream Co. v. Golden Rod Ice Cream Co., 7 Cir., 1961, 287 F.2d 265, 267; Baldwin Hills Bldg. Mat. Co. v. Fibreboard Paper Prod. Corp., C.D.Cal., 1968, 283 F.Supp. 202, 203; Industr......
-
Robinson-Patman Act
...through processing after entering the state of sale); Belliston, 455 F.2d at 177-81; Cent. Ice Cream Co. v. Golden Rod Ice Cream Co., 287 F.2d 265, 266-67 (7th Cir. 1961). 32. 340 U.S. 231 (1951). 33. Id. at 236-38; see also Zoslaw, 693 F.2d at 879-80 (in-state storage of records and tapes ......
-
Table of Cases
...Central Contracting Co.; United States v., 527 F. Supp. 1101 (E.D. Va. 1981), 765, 767 Central Ice Cream Co. v. Golden Rod Ice Cream Co., 287 F.2d 265 (7th Cir. 1961), 527, 528 Central Nat’l Bank v. Rainbolt, 720 F.2d 1183 (10th Cir. 1983), 813 Central Power & Light Co. v. FERC, 575 F.2d 93......
-
The Robinson-Patman “In Commerce” Requirement
...1965) (processing of raw milk into finishedmilk kept the milk in the flow of commerce); Central Ice Cream Co. v. Golden Rod Ice Cream Co., 287 F.2d 265, 266-67 (7thCir. 1961) (processing raw milk and other ingredients into ice cream breaks the flow of commerce); Red Apple Supermarkets,Inc. ......