Pick Mfg Co v. General Motors Corporation
Decision Date | 26 October 1936 |
Docket Number | No. 12,12 |
Parties | PICK MFG. CO. v. GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION et al. * |
Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Mr. Carl B. Rix, of Milwaukee, Wis., for petitioner.
Messrs. John M. Zane, Thomas Francis Howe, and Henry S. Rademacher, all of Chicago, Ill., for respondent.
By this suit petitioner challenged the validity under section 3 of the Clayton Act (38 Stat. 730, 731, 15 U.S.C. § 14 (15 U.S.C.A. § 14)) of a provision of the contracts made with dealers by selling organizations of the General Motors Corporation. The provision in the contract between the Chevrolet Motor Company and dealers is as follows:
There is a similar provision in contracts made by the Buick Company.
The District Court dismissed the bill of complaint for want of equity, and its decree was affirmed by the Circuit Court of Appeals. 80 F.(2d) 641. Upon the evidence adduced at the trial, the District Court found that the effect of the clause had not been in any way substantially to lessen competition or to create a monopoly in any line of commerce. This finding was sustained by the Circuit Court of Appeals. 80 F.(2d) 641, at page 644.
Under the established rule, this Court accepts the findings in which two courts concur unless clear error is shown. Stuart v. Hayden, 169 U.S. 1, 14, 18 S.Ct. 274, 42 L.Ed. 639; Texas & Pacific Railway Company v. Railroad Commission, 232 U.S. 338, 34 S.Ct. 438, 58 L.Ed. 630; Texas & N.O.R. Co. v. Brotherhood of Railway & S. S. Clerks, 281 U.S. 548, 558, 50 S.Ct. 427, 429, 74 L.Ed. 1034; United States v. Commercial Credit Co., 286 U.S. 63, 67, 52 S.Ct. 467, 468, 76 L.Ed. 978; Continental Illinois Nat. Bank & Trust Co. v. Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific R. Co., 294 U.S. 648, 678, 55 S.Ct. 595, 607, 79 L.Ed. 1110. Applying this rule, the decree is affirmed.
Affirmed.
* Rehearing denied 299 U.S. 622, 57 S.Ct. 192, 81 L.Ed. —-.
To continue reading
Request your trial-
United States v. Standard Oil Co.
...951; United States v. Yellow Cab Co., 1947, 332 U.S. 218, 224-226, 67 S.Ct. 1560, 91 L.Ed. 2010. 5 Pick Mfg. Co. v. General Motors Corporation, 1936, 299 U.S. 3, 57 S.Ct. 1, 81 L.Ed. 4. 6 Pick Mfg. Co. v. General Motors Corporation, supra, 299 U.S. at pages 3, 4, 57 S.Ct. at pages 1, 2, 81 ......
-
Jefferson Parish Hospital District No v. Hyde
...with it may cause it to misfunction. [citing Pick Mfg. Co. v. General Motors Corp., 80 F.2d 641 (CA 7 1935), aff'd, 299 U.S. 3, 57 S.Ct. 1, 81 L.Ed 4 (1936) ] . . . And, if the tied and tying products are functionally related, they may reduce costs through economies of joint production and ......
-
General Business Services, Inc. v. Rouse
...Corp., 332 F.2d 505 (2d Cir. 1964); Pick Mfg. Co. v. General Motors Corp., 80 F.2d 641 (7th Cir. 1935), aff'd per curiam, 299 U.S. 3, 57 S.Ct. 1, 81 L.Ed. 4 (1936); Seligson v. Plum Tree, Inc., 361 F.Supp. 748 (E.D.Pa.1973); U. S. v. Jerrold Electronics Corp., 187 F.Supp. 545 (D.C.Pa.1960),......
-
United States v. Appalachian Electric Power Co
...60, 63, 67 L.Ed. 140; e.g., Alabama Power Co, v. Ickes, 302 U.S. 464, 477, 58 S.Ct. 300, 302, 82 L.Ed. 374; Pick Mfg. Co. v. General Motors Corp., 299 U.S. 3, 57 S.Ct. 1, 81 L.Ed. 4; Texas & N.O.R. Co. v. Ry. Clerks, 281 U.S. 548, 558, 50 S.Ct. 427, 429, 74 L.Ed. 1034; United States v. O'Do......
-
Tying meets the new institutional economics: farewell to the chimera of forcing.
...Corp., 80 F.2d 641, 642 (7th Cir. 1935) (scrutinizing requirement that GM dealers purchase, sell, and use only GM parts), aff'd per curiam, 299 U.S. 3 (1936). (7) See generally Victor H. Kramer, The Supreme Court and Tying Arrangements: Antitrust as History, 69 Minn. L. Rev. 1013, 1014 (198......
-
Survey of the Texas Antitrust Laws
...258 U.S. 346(1922).17",142 Tex. 5, 175 S.W.2d 230 (1943).175Pick Mfg. Co. v, General Motors Corp., 80 F .2d 641, 643(7th Cir.1935);aff'd,299 U.S. 3 TEXASANTITRUSTLAWS263The automobile is a complicated mechanism, the refinedproduct of scientific engineeringafterlong investigation,close compe......