Fox Film Corporation v. Muller, No. 47

CourtUnited States Supreme Court
Writing for the CourtSUTHERLAND
Citation296 U.S. 207,56 S.Ct. 183,80 L.Ed. 158
Docket NumberNo. 47
Decision Date09 December 1935
PartiesFOX FILM CORPORATION v. MULLER

296 U.S. 207
56 S.Ct. 183
80 L.Ed. 158
FOX FILM CORPORATION

v.

MULLER.

No. 47.
Argued and Submitted Nov. 15, 1935.
Decided Dec. 9, 1935.

Page 208

Messrs. Charles E. Hughes, Jr., of Washington, D.C., Percy Heiliger, of New York City, and James D. Shearer, of Minneapolis, Minn., for petitioner.

Mr. Abram F. Myers, of Washington, D.C., for respondent.

Mr. Justice SUTHERLAND delivered the opinion of the Court.

This is an action brought in a Minnesota state court of first instance by the Film Corporation against Muller, to recover damages for an alleged breach of two contracts by which Muller was licensed to exhibit certain moving picture films belonging to the corporation. Muller answered, setting up the invalidity of the contracts under the Sherman Anti-Trust Act (15 USCA §§ 1—7, 15 note). It was and is agreed that these contracts are substantially the same as the one involved in United States v. Paramount Famous Lasky Corporation, et al. (D.C.) 34 F.(2d) 984, affirmed 282 U.S. 30, 51 S.Ct. 42, 75 L.Ed. 145; that petitioner was one of the defendants in that action; and that the 'arbitration clause,' paragraph 18 of each of the contracts sued upon, is the same as that held in that case to be invalid. In view of the disposition which we are to make of this writ, it is not necessary to set forth the terms of the arbitration clause or the other provisions of the contract.

The court of first instance held that each contract sued upon violated the Sherman Anti-Trust Act, and dismissed the action. In a supplemental opinion, that court put its decision upon the grounds, first, that the arbitration plan is so connected with the remainder of the contract that the entire contract is tainted; and, second, that the con-

Page 209

tract violates the Sherman Anti-Trust law. The state Supreme Court affirmed. 192 Minn. 212, 255 N.W. 845. We granted certiorari, 293 U.S. 550, 55 S.Ct. 213, 79 L.Ed. 653; but, when the case was called for argument, it appeared that no final judgment had been entered, and the writ was dismissed as improvidently granted. 294 U.S. 696, 55 S.Ct. 444, 79 L.Ed. 1234. The case was then remanded to the state Supreme Court; and, the judgment having been made final, and again affirmed by the state Supreme Court on the authority of its previous opinion, (Minn.) 260 N.W. 320, we allowed the present writ. 295 U.S. 730, 55 S.Ct. 924, 79 L.Ed. 1680.

In its opinion, the state Supreme Court, after a statement of the case, said (192 Minn. 212, at page 214, 255 N.W. 845, 846): 'The question presented on this appeal is whether the arbitration clause is severable from the contract, leaving the remainder of the contract enforceable or not severable, permeating and tainting the whole contract with illegality and making it void.' That court then proceeded to refer to and discuss a number of decisions of state and federal courts, some of which took the view that the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
214 practice notes
  • Buttolph v. Adams, 1:18-cv-2370
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 3th Circuit. United States District Court of Middle District of Pennsylvania
    • September 10, 2020
    ...a state law ground that is independent of the federal question and adequate to support the judgment. See, e.g., Fox Film Corp. v. Muller, 296 U.S. 207, 210, 56 S.Ct. 183, 184, 80 L.Ed. 158 (1935); Klinger v. Missouri, 13 Wall. 257, 263, 20 L.Ed. 635 (1872). This rule applies whether the sta......
  • Sochor v. Florida, No. 91-5843
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • June 8, 1992
    ...(1983); see also Harris v. Reed, 489 U.S. 255, 264, n. 10, 109 S.Ct. 1038, 1044, n. 10, 103 L.Ed.2d 308 (1989); Fox Film Corp. v. Muller, 296 U.S. 207, 210, 56 S.Ct. 183, 184, 80 L.Ed. 158 (1935). Page 534 The Supreme Court of Florida said this about petitioner's claim that the trial judge'......
  • Hernandez v. Hill, 1:11-CV-00857 LJO GSA HC
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. Eastern District of California
    • February 29, 2012
    ...Ylst v. Nunnemaker, 501 U.S. 797, 801 (1991); Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722, 729-30 (1989); See also, Fox Film Corp. v. Muller, 296 U.S. 207, 210 (1935). A state court's refusal to hear the merits of a claim because of petitioner's failure to follow a state procedural rule is considered......
  • Orona v. Hedgepeth, 1:12-CV-00581 LJO GSA HC
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. Eastern District of California
    • August 24, 2012
    ...Ylst v. Nunnemaker, 501 U.S. 797, 801 (1991); Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722, 729-30 (1989); See also, Fox Film Corp. v. Muller, 296 U.S. 207, 210 (1935). A state court's refusal to hear the merits of a claim because of petitioner's failure to follow a state procedural rule is considered......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
212 cases
  • Buttolph v. Adams, 1:18-cv-2370
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 3th Circuit. United States District Court of Middle District of Pennsylvania
    • September 10, 2020
    ...a state law ground that is independent of the federal question and adequate to support the judgment. See, e.g., Fox Film Corp. v. Muller, 296 U.S. 207, 210, 56 S.Ct. 183, 184, 80 L.Ed. 158 (1935); Klinger v. Missouri, 13 Wall. 257, 263, 20 L.Ed. 635 (1872). This rule applies whether the sta......
  • Sochor v. Florida, No. 91-5843
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • June 8, 1992
    ...(1983); see also Harris v. Reed, 489 U.S. 255, 264, n. 10, 109 S.Ct. 1038, 1044, n. 10, 103 L.Ed.2d 308 (1989); Fox Film Corp. v. Muller, 296 U.S. 207, 210, 56 S.Ct. 183, 184, 80 L.Ed. 158 (1935). Page 534 The Supreme Court of Florida said this about petitioner's claim that the trial judge'......
  • Hernandez v. Hill, 1:11-CV-00857 LJO GSA HC
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. Eastern District of California
    • February 29, 2012
    ...Ylst v. Nunnemaker, 501 U.S. 797, 801 (1991); Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722, 729-30 (1989); See also, Fox Film Corp. v. Muller, 296 U.S. 207, 210 (1935). A state court's refusal to hear the merits of a claim because of petitioner's failure to follow a state procedural rule is considered......
  • Orona v. Hedgepeth, 1:12-CV-00581 LJO GSA HC
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. Eastern District of California
    • August 24, 2012
    ...Ylst v. Nunnemaker, 501 U.S. 797, 801 (1991); Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722, 729-30 (1989); See also, Fox Film Corp. v. Muller, 296 U.S. 207, 210 (1935). A state court's refusal to hear the merits of a claim because of petitioner's failure to follow a state procedural rule is considered......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
  • Rethinking the Supreme Court’s Interstate Waters Jurisprudence
    • United States
    • Georgetown Environmental Law Review Nbr. 33-2, January 2021
    • January 1, 2021
    ...(statutory) appellate jurisdiction to judge the content of state law contrary to the state’s highest court. See Fox Film Corp. v. Muller, 296 U.S. 207, 210–11 (1935); Murdock v. City of Memphis, 87 U.S. (20 Wall.) 590, 635–38 (1875). For Hinderlider’s jurisdictional ruling to survive, thus,......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT