Schwing Motor Company v. Hudson Sales Corporation, 7220
| Decision Date | 17 December 1956 |
| Docket Number | 7221.,No. 7220,7220 |
| Citation | 239 F.2d 176 |
| Parties | SCHWING MOTOR COMPANY, Incorporated, a Maryland Corporation, Appellant, v. HUDSON SALES CORPORATION, a Michigan Corporation, Hudson Motor Car Company, a corporation of Michigan, Bankert Hudson, Inc., a Maryland Corporation, Martin A. Bankert, Frank Burnham, Claude W. Margetts, Appellees. BELAIR ROAD HUDSON, Inc., a Maryland Corporation, Appellant, v. HUDSON SALES CORPORATION, a Michigan Corporation, Hudson Motor Car Company, a corporation of Michigan, Bankert Hudson, Inc., a Maryland Corporation, Martin A. Bankert, Frank Burnham, Claude W. Margetts, Appellees. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit |
Wilson K. Barnes, Baltimore, Md. (D. Sylvan Friedman, Baltimore, Md., on the brief), for appellants.
William L. Marbury and Roger A. Clapp, Baltimore, Md. (John Martin Jones, Jr., Baltimore, Md., Richard W. Larwin, Detroit, Mich., John S. Stanley, Baltimore, Md., and Hershey, Donaldson, Williams & Stanley Baltimore, Md., on the brief), for appellees.
Before PARKER, Chief Judge, and SOPER and SOBELOFF, Circuit Judges.
These are appeals from orders dismissing on the pleadings actions by two local automobile dealers to recover damages under the Sherman and Clayton antitrust acts from an automobile manufacturer's sales corporation and a local dealer to whom an exclusive dealership or agency had been granted. The plaintiffs had formerly held dealership contracts with the sales corporation of the manufacturer for dealing in the make of automobiles in question; but there is no claim of right to recover damages on account of breach of contract; and there is no allegation or contention that the exclusive dealership was a part of or incidental to any conspiracy or agreement to monopolize or restrain trade between manufacturers or wholesale dealers. The facts are fully stated in the opinion of the District Judge and we agree with him that no violation of the Sherman or Clayton Acts, 15 U.S.C.A. §§ 1-7, 12 et seq., 15 note is alleged for reasons adequately stated in his opinion, which is adopted as the opinion of this court. See Schwing Motor Co. v. Hudson Sales Corporation, D.C., 138 F.Supp. 899.
Affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
North Am. Soccer League v. NAT. FOOTBALL LEAGUE
...distinction was well stated by Judge Thomsen in Schwing Motor Co. v. Hudson Sales Corp., 138 F.Supp. 899, 903 (D.Md. 1956), aff'd, 239 F.2d 176 (4th Cir. 1956), cert. denied, 355 U.S. 823, 78 S.Ct. 30, 2 L.Ed.2d 38 "The main purpose of the anti-trust laws is to protect the public from monop......
-
Disenos Artisticos E Industriales, SA v. Work
...under his own private brand or trade name") (quoting Schwing Motor Co. v. Hudson Sales Corp., 138 F.Supp. 899, 902 (D.Md.), aff'd, 239 F.2d 176 (4th Cir.1956), cert. denied, 355 U.S. 823, 78 S.Ct. 30, 2 L.Ed.2d 38 (1957)); and in section 1 cases, see, e.g., Muenster Butane, Inc. v. Stewart ......
-
Joseph E. Seagram & Sons, Inc. v. Hawaiian Oke & Liquors, Ltd.
...7 Cir., 1953, 201 F.2d 534, 539-540; Schwing Motor Co. v. Hudson Sales Corp., D. Md., 1956, 138 F.Supp. 899, aff'd per curiam, 4 Cir., 1956, 239 F.2d 176; United States v. Bausch & Lomb Optical Co., S.D.N.Y., 1942, 45 F.Supp. 387, 398-399, aff'd by an equally divided court, 1944, 321 U.S. 7......
-
White Motor Company v. United States, 54
...Motor Car Co., 100 U.S.App.D.C. 161, 243 F.2d 418; Schwing Motor Co. v. Hudson Sales Corp., 138 F.Supp. 899 (D.C.D.Md.), aff'd, 239 F.2d 176 (C.A.4th Cir.). In the former case the court observed, in holding an exclusive franchise arrangement not violative of the Sherman Act: 'The short of i......
-
North Carolina. Practice Text
...the court in 98. Packard Motor Car Co. v. Webster Motor Car Co., 243 F.2d 418 (D.C. Cir. 1957); Schwing Motor Co. v. Hudson Sales Corp., 239 F.2d 176 (4th Cir. 1956). 99. Waldron Buick , 118 S.E.2d at 568. 100. See N.C. GEN. STAT. § 20-305(5). 101. See id. 102. See, e.g. , American Motors S......
-
North Carolina
...(N.C. 1961). 92. Packard Motor Car Co. v. Webster Motor Car Co., 243 F.2d 418 (D.C. Cir. 1957); Schwing Motor Co. v. Hudson Sales Corp., 239 F.2d 176 (4th Cir. 1956). 93. See Waldron Buick , 118 S.E.2d at 568. 94. See N.C. GEN. STAT. § 20-305(5). 95. See id. 96. See, e.g. , Am. Motors Sales......