CRANE DISTRIBUTING COMPANY v. Glenmore Distilleries

• Decision Date: 02 June 1959
• Docket Number: No. 13606.,13606.
• Citation: 267 F.2d 343
• Parties: CRANE DISTRIBUTING COMPANY, Appellant, v. GLENMORE DISTILLERIES, Appellee.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit

267 F.2d 343 (1959)

CRANE DISTRIBUTING COMPANY, Appellant, v. GLENMORE DISTILLERIES, Appellee.

No. 13606.

United States Court of Appeals Sixth Circuit.

June 2, 1959.

William Mellor, Louisville, Ky. (John Y. Brown, Miller & Griffin, Lexington, Ky., on the brief), for appellant.

J. H. Gold, Louisville, Ky. (Chas. I. Dawson, of Bullitt, Dawson & Tarrant, Louisville, Ky., on the brief), for appellee.

Before MARTIN, Chief Judge, McALLISTER, Circuit Judge, and MATHES, District Judge.

MATHES, District Judge.

This appeal is from a summary judgment dismissing on the merits, for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, an asserted cause of action under the Federal anti-trust laws. Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b) (6), 56(b), 28 U. S.C.A.

The claim in question for threefold damages 15 U.S.C.A. § 15, based upon asserted violations of 15 U.S.C.A. §§ 1 and 2, is set forth in Count I of appellant's five-count complaint. The remaining four counts present alleged causes of action arising under Kentucky law and are not before us upon this appeal, the District Judge having made an "express determination that there is no just reason for delay", and having directed entry of final judgment of dismissal as to Count I only, as permitted by Rule 54(b).

From Count I of the complaint, as supplemented by appellant's answers to interrogatories relied upon by appellee in support of the motion for summary judgment, it appears that the claim asserted under the Federal anti-trust laws, briefly put, is: (1) that appellant, doing business solely in Kentucky, was one of the distributors to retailers in Kentucky of appellee's products, including "the Yellowstone line" and Glenmore's Kentucky Tavern whiskey, which are produced and distilled only in Kentucky, but are exported and sold by appellee "for beverage purposes throughout the United States"; (2) that Gross Distributing Company is "a distributor of alcoholic beverages in interstate commerce, with its principal office * * * at Lexington, Kentucky"; (3) that "Glenmore appellee, Gross and others * * conspired to create * * * a monopoly and illegal restraint of trade and commerce in the liquor industry among the several states, including Kentucky, to the detriment of the public"; (4) that pursuant to and in furtherance of this conspiracy, appellee "informed plaintiff appellant that plaintiff would not be allowed to keep the Yellowstone line * * * unless plaintiff, on its resale of Kentucky Tavern whiskey to retailers * * * gave rebates to such retailers and thereby sold to the retailers Kentucky Tavern whiskey at a maximum price below the prescribed minimum" fixed by the contract between Glenmore and its distributors, including appellant, and sanctioned by Kentucky's "fair trade" law K.R.S. §§ 244.380, 244.390 et seq.; (5) that appellant in turn notified Glenmore that "it would not give rebates and would not sell Kentucky Tavern whiskey to retailers at a price below the minimum price fixed by the fair trade contract"; (6) that appellee thereupon "terminated the Yellowstone agreement with plaintiff and placed such lines with Gross * * * and, at the direction of Glenmore, plaintiff did deliver to Gross all whiskeys in the Glenmore line that the plaintiff had in his warehouse which was paid for by Glenmore by its check, and not by Gross."

Both parties agree that the case does not involve "any immunity bath granted by the Miller-Tydings Act or the McGuire Act." See Schwegmann Bros. v. Calvert Distillers Corp., 1951, 341 U.S. 384, 71 S.Ct. 745, 95...