Pick Mfg Co v. General Motors Corporation, No. 12

CourtUnited States Supreme Court
Writing for the CourtPER CURIAM; Mr. Justice VAN DEVANTER
PartiesPICK MFG. CO. v. GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION et al. *
Docket NumberNo. 12
Decision Date26 October 1936

299 U.S. 3
57 S.Ct. 1
81 L.Ed. 4
PICK MFG. CO.

v.

GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION et al.*

No. 12.
Argued Oct. 13, 14, 1936.
Decided Oct. 26, 1936.

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.

PER CURIAM.

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: 'Dealer agrees that he will not sell, offer for sale, or use in the repair of Chevrolet motor vehicles and chassis second-hand or used parts or any part or parts not manufactured by or authorized by the Chevrolet Motor Company. It is agreed that Dealer is not granted any

Page 4

exclusive selling rights in genuine new Chevrolet parts or accessories.'

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.

Mr. Justice VAN DEVANTER, Mr. Justice STONE, and Mr. Justice ROBERTS took no part in the consideration and decision of this cause.

* Rehearing denied 299 U.S. 622, 57 S.Ct. 192, 81 L.Ed. —-.

To continue reading

Request your trial
33 practice notes
  • General Business Services, Inc. v. Rouse, Civ. A. No. 79-2911.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 3th Circuit. United States District Court (Eastern District of Pennsylvania)
    • July 15, 1980
    ...Susser v. Carvel 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. 5......
  • United States v. Appalachian Electric Power Co, No. 12
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • December 16, 1940
    ...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'Donnel......
  • Virginian Ry Co v. System Federation No 40, No. 324
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • March 29, 1937
    ...of Railway & S. S. Clerks, 281 U.S. 548, 558, 50 S.Ct. 427. 429, 74 L.Ed. 1034; Pick Mfg. Co. v. General Motors Corporation, 299 U.S. 3, 4, 57 S.Ct. 1, 2, 81 L.Ed. 4, and address ourselves to the questions of law raised on the record. First. The Obligation Imposed by the Statute. By tit......
  • Standard Oil Co of California and Standard Stations v. United States, No. 279
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • June 13, 1949
    ...These are, Federal Trade Comm. v. Sinclair Co., 261 U.S. 463, 43 S.Ct. 450, 67 L.Ed. 746, and Pick Mfg. Co. v. General Motors Corp., 299 U.S. 3, 57 S.Ct. 1, 81 L.Ed. 4. The third Federal Trade Comm. v. Curtis Pub. Co., 260 U.S. 568, 43 S.Ct. 210, 67 L.Ed. 408—went off on the ground that the......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
33 cases
  • General Business Services, Inc. v. Rouse, Civ. A. No. 79-2911.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 3th Circuit. United States District Court (Eastern District of Pennsylvania)
    • July 15, 1980
    ...Susser v. Carvel 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. 5......
  • United States v. Appalachian Electric Power Co, No. 12
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • December 16, 1940
    ...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'Donnel......
  • Virginian Ry Co v. System Federation No 40, No. 324
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • March 29, 1937
    ...of Railway & S. S. Clerks, 281 U.S. 548, 558, 50 S.Ct. 427. 429, 74 L.Ed. 1034; Pick Mfg. Co. v. General Motors Corporation, 299 U.S. 3, 4, 57 S.Ct. 1, 2, 81 L.Ed. 4, and address ourselves to the questions of law raised on the record. First. The Obligation Imposed by the Statute. By tit......
  • Standard Oil Co of California and Standard Stations v. United States, No. 279
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • June 13, 1949
    ...These are, Federal Trade Comm. v. Sinclair Co., 261 U.S. 463, 43 S.Ct. 450, 67 L.Ed. 746, and Pick Mfg. Co. v. General Motors Corp., 299 U.S. 3, 57 S.Ct. 1, 81 L.Ed. 4. The third Federal Trade Comm. v. Curtis Pub. Co., 260 U.S. 568, 43 S.Ct. 210, 67 L.Ed. 408—went off on the ground that the......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

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