Hub Auto Supply, Inc. v. Automatic Radio Mfg. Co., Civ. A. No. 57-1000.

Decision Date22 May 1959
Docket NumberCiv. A. No. 57-1000.
Citation173 F. Supp. 396
PartiesHUB AUTO SUPPLY, INC., v. AUTOMATIC RADIO MFG. CO., Inc.
CourtU.S. District Court — District of Massachusetts

Louis Winer, Boston, Mass., for plaintiff.

Jackson J. Holtz, Boston, Mass., for defendant.

FRANCIS J. W. FORD, District Judge.

This is an antitrust action brought under the provisions of the Sherman and Clayton Antitrust Acts, 15 U.S. C.A. §§ 1, 2 and 15, in which defendant has moved for judgment on the pleadings.

The complaint alleges that plaintiff is a corporation engaged in the business of distributing automotive accessories, shipping merchandise to every state in the Union, and defendant a corporation which manufactures radios for automobiles. It is alleged that plaintiff was a distributor of automobile radios manufactured by defendant from 1950 until 1957, when defendant informed plaintiff that its new line of radios (but not the existing models) would not be available to plaintiff as a distributor, and that defendant has since refused to honor plaintiff's orders for new models of radios. It further alleges that defendant has joined, conspired and combined with Arnco Auto Supply Co. and Ellis, Inc., plaintiff's principal competitors, to prevent plaintiff from servicing customers it has acquired over a period of years, and that the principal objective of the combination is to restrict plaintiff in its trade and competition with others.

Defendant argues that because defendant has a right to select the parties with whom he will deal, United States v. Colgate & Co., 250 U.S. 300, 39 S.Ct. 465, 63 L.Ed. 992, or even to grant an exclusive distributorship, Packard Motor Car Co. v. Webster Motor Car Co., 100 U.S.App.D.C. 161, 243 F.2d 418, the allegations of the complaint do not state any cause of action under the antitrust laws. However, the complaint alleges not merely a refusal to deal with plaintiff, but also that that refusal was in furtherance of a conspiracy between defendant and plaintiff's competitors to restrict competition by plaintiff. As the Colgate case itself points out, the right to select one's customers is not an absolute right. Its use as an instrument in the furtherance of a conspiracy denounced by the antitrust laws brings it within the ban of those laws. Lorain Journal Co. v. United States, 342 U.S. 143, 155, 72 S. Ct. 181, 96 L.Ed. 162. The charge here is that defendant conspired to restrict competition by plaintiff. Defendant cannot avoid the charge by saying that what...

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 cases
  • Finlay & Associates, Inc. v. Borg-Warner Corp.
    • United States
    • New Jersey Superior Court
    • September 22, 1976
    ...supplier is not enough. See Joseph E. Seagram & Sons, Inc. v. Hawaiian Oke & Liquors, Ltd., supra; Hub Auto Supply, Inc. v. Automatic Radio mfg. Co., 173 F.Supp. 396 (D.Mass.1959). Since it is not a violation of federal law for a distributor to seek and obtain cancellation of other distribu......
  • McKesson and Robbins, Inc. v. Charles Pfizer & Co.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Pennsylvania
    • November 5, 1964
    ...1277 (1953); Lorain Journal Co. v. United States, 342 U. S. 143, 72 S.Ct. 181, 96 L.Ed. 162 (1951); Hub Auto Supply, Inc. v. Automatic Radio Mfg. Co., 173 F.Supp. 396 (D.Mass. 1959). Under the circumstances of this case, the refusal to deal does further the alleged conspiracy to fix and mai......
  • United States v. Shindler
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York
    • May 25, 1959
    ... ... Fischman v. Raytheon Mfg. Co., 2 Cir., 1951, 188 F. 2d 783, 786; Joseph v. Farnsworth Radio & Television Corp., 2 Cir., 1952, 198 F. 2d 883 ... ...

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