Lewis v. Archbell, 436.

Decision Date02 July 1930
Docket NumberNo. 436.,436.
Citation154 S.E. 11
CourtNorth Carolina Supreme Court
PartiesLEWIS et al. v. ARCHBELL et al.

Appeal from Superior Court, Moore County; Clement, Judge.

Action by C. S. Lewis and J. M. Brown, co-partners, doing business in the name of C. S. Lewis, against D. B. Archbell, and others. From the judgment, plaintiffs appeal.

Reversed.

The evidence tended to show that the plaintiffs, C. S. Lewis and J. M. Brown, were engaged in buying and selling cross-ties in a little village known as Hemp. The defendants Fry and Garner were also engaged in the same business in said village. The defendant Archbell was employed by his codefendant, Norfolk Southern Railroad Company, as chief tie and timber inspector for the territory in which the village of Hemp is located. The evidence further tended to show that Fry and Garner entered into a contract with its codefendant, Norfolk Southern Railroad Company, through the defendant Archbell, according to the terms of which the Norfolk Southern agreed to buy cross-ties at Hemp, N. C, only from its codefendants, Fry and Garner, and Fry and Garner agreed not to sell ties to any other person, firm, or corporation except Norfolk Southern. The Seaboard Air Line and also the P. & N. Railroad boughtties at Hemp. There was also testimony to the effect that the defendant Garner stated that the firm of Fry and Garner had a contract with the Norfolk Southern Railroad, and that in about two weeks they would "put the plaintiffs, Brown and Lewis, out of business."

Plaintiffs alleged that by reason of the contract aforesaid they were compelled to quit business at Hemp, N. C., and that their business was injured, broken up, or destroyed.

At the conclusion of the evidence the trial judge nonsuited the action, and plaintiffs appealed.

Seawell & Seawell, of Carthage, for appellants.

U. L. Spence, of Carthage, for appellees Norfolk Southern R. Co. and Archbell.

W. R. Clegg, of Carthage, for appellees Fry & Garner.

BROGDEN, J.

The plaintiffs and the defendants Fry and Garner were the sole cross-tie dealers or brokers at Hemp, which is a small village. Consequently they were competitors. There was evidence tending to show that the defendants Fry and Garner and Norfolk Southern Railroad Company through its agent, the defendant Archbell, entered into an agreement whereby Fry and Garner contracted to sell cross-ties only to said railroad company, and said company contracted to purchase ties only from Fry and Garner.

These facts raise the following question of law: Does said contract violate C. S. § 2563 so as to create a cause of...

To continue reading

Request your trial
10 cases
  • Ramsey v. Camp, 162
    • United States
    • North Carolina Supreme Court
    • April 12, 1961
    ...in restraint of trade. The action was nonsuited at the September Term 1929, Moore Superior Court, and reversed on appeal. Lewis v. Archbell, 199 N.C. 205, 154 S.E. 11. Thereafter, on 15 September 1931, the plaintiffs came into court and took a voluntary nonsuit as to D. B. Archbell and Norf......
  • Contant v. Bank of Am. Corp.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York
    • March 15, 2018
    ...Carolina Supreme Court has likewise held that proximate cause is required to recover under the state's antitrust law. Lewis v. Archbell, 154 S.E. 11, 12 (N.C. 1930); see also Mayton v. Hiatt's Used Cars, Inc., 262 S.E.2d 860, 863 (N.C. Ct. App. 1980) (quoting Lewis, 154 S.E. at 12). The Fou......
  • Ellis v. Smith-Broadhurst, Inc.
    • United States
    • North Carolina Court of Appeals
    • August 5, 1980
    ...relation between the violation of the statute and the injury complained of is an issue of fact for a jury. . . ." Lewis v. Archbell, 199 N.C. 205, 206, 154 S.E. 11, 12 (1930); Mayton v. Hiatt's Used Cars, 45 N.C.App. 206, 211, 262 S.E.2d 860, 863 (1980). There is some evidence that Industri......
  • Mayton v. Hiatt's Used Cars, Inc.
    • United States
    • North Carolina Court of Appeals
    • February 19, 1980
    ...enacted was to permit recovery by injured parties for antitrust violations which damaged the parties' business. In Lewis v. Archbell, 199 N.C. 205, 154 S.E. 11 (1930), the plaintiff brought private action under this provision to recover damages for violation of the monopoly statute. Our Sup......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
2 books & journal articles
  • North Carolina. Practice Text
    • United States
    • ABA Antitrust Library State Antitrust Practice and Statutes (FIFTH). Volume II
    • December 9, 2014
    ...enforceable. Knutton v. Cofield, 160 S.E.2d 29, 33-34 (N.C. 1968). 112. 429 S.E.2d 752 (N.C. Ct. App. 1993). 113. Id. at 754. 114. 154 S.E. 11 (N.C. 1930). 115. Id. at 12. 116. 53 S.E.2d 441 (N.C. 1949). 117. Id. at 443. 118. Id. at 442. 119. 564 F. Supp. 1309, 1313 (M.D.N.C. 1983), aff’d ,......
  • North Carolina
    • United States
    • ABA Archive Editions Library State Antitrust Practice and Statutes. Fourth Edition Volume II
    • January 1, 2009
    ...considered enforceable. Knutton v. Cofield, 160 S.E.2d 29, 31 (N.C. 1968). 106. 429 S.E.2d 752 (N.C. Ct. App. 1993). 107. Id. at 754. 108. 154 S.E. 11 (N.C. 1930). 109. Id. at 12. 110. 53 S.E.2d 441 (N.C. 1949). 111. Id. at 443. 112. Id. at 442. 113. 564 F. Supp. 1309, 1313 (M.D.N.C. 1983),......

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