Seagram-Distillers Corp. v. Old Dearborn Distrib. Co.
| Decision Date | 17 June 1936 |
| Docket Number | No. 23531.,23531. |
| Citation | 2 N.E.2d 940,363 Ill. 610 |
| Parties | SEAGRAM-DISTILLERS CORPORATION v. OLD DEARBORN DISTRIBUTING CO. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Suit by the Seagram-Distillers Corporation against the Old Dearborn Distributing Company. Decree for plaintiff, and defendant appeals.
Affirmed.Appeal from Circuit Court, Cook County; George Fred Rush, judge.
Irving Breakstone and Irving Greenspahn, both of Chicago, for appellant.
Mayer, Meyer, Austrian & Platt, of Chicago (Isaac H. Mayer, Carl Meyer, Richard Mayer, Louis A. Kohn, and Otto Kerner, Jr., all of Chicago, of counsel), for appellee.
At the suit of the Seagram-Distillers Corporation the circuit court of Cook county permanently enjoined the Old Dearborn Distributing Company from willfully and knowingly advertising, offering for sale, or selling ‘Seagram's' or ‘Kessler's' products in this state at less than the prices stipulated by plaintiff from time to time, under the Fair Trade Act (Smith-Hurd Ann.St. c. 121 1/2, §§ 188-191), in accordance with the terms of contracts made pursuant to that act between plaintiff and distributors or retailers.
There is no material dispute as to the facts. Plaintiff, a Delaware corporation licensed to do business in Illinois, deals in alcoholic beverages solely at wholesale. It does not manufacture, but buys, Seagram's whiskys and gins and Kessler's blended whiskys from the producers, Joseph E. Seagram & Sons, Limited, Joseph E. Seagram & Sons, Inc., and affiliated corporations. Its place of business in this state is in the city of Chicago. It has been so engaged in business since July, 1934. The commodities it sells bear labels and trade-marks, and they are in fair and open competition with commodities of the same general class produced by others. Defendant is a corporation operating four retail liquor stores in the city of Chicago. Its charter powers include sales at both wholesale and retail. Plaintiff's sales in Chicago have been confined to wholesale distributors. It has never sold any of the products in controversy to defendant but has sold other liquors to it. Contracts in conformity with the terms of the Fair Trade Act have been executed between plaintiff and certain distributors and between plaintiff and certain numerous Illinois retailers, although plaintiff does not sell beverages direct to any retailer. One of such contracts was executed by plaintiff and signed by defendant's secretary and treasurer. The contracts provide that the Seagram products shall not be sold, advertised, or offered for sale in Illinois below the prices stipulated by plaintiff. Defendant sold such merchandise at cut prices but at a profit to itself. It continued to do so after plaintiff's demand that it cease such practice. On account of such price-cutting, plaintiff and other retailers dealing in Seagram products suffered a diminution of sales during the price-cutting period. Some dealers took the products from display, and some of them notified plaintiff they could not compete with defendant and would discontinue handling Seagram products unless the price-cutting was stopped. Defendant was a party to breaches of other fair trade contracts between plaintiff and certain distributors, and continued the price-cutting throughout the trial of the instant case.
Defendant contends that the Fair Trade Act (Smith-Hurd Ann.St. c. 121 1/2, §§ 188-191; Ill.Rev.Stat.1935, c. 140, pars. 8-11) violates several specified provisions of the State and Federal Constitutions, the Sherman Anti-Trust Act (15 U.S.C.A. §§ 1-7, 15 note), the Anti-Trust Act of this State (Smith-Hurd Ann.St. c. 38, § 569 et seq.), and the Federal Trade Commission Act (15 U.S.C.A. § 41 et seq.); that re-sale price-maintenance contracts are invalid under such constitutional and statutory provisions and are void at common law as unfair competition. These contentions are answered adversely to defendant's claim in Triner Corp. v. McNeil, 2 N.E.(2d) 929, decided at the present term of this court. That opinion sets out the pertinent provisions of the act, and they need not be repeated here.
The claim that the transactions between plaintiff and defendant are interstate transactions must likewise be denied. Plaintiff maintains a warehouse in Chicago and all of its purchases are delivered there from the producers. The products are not shipped to plaintiff's customers from outside the State but are delivered from its Chicago warehouse. They are in no sense interstate transactions. Rudin v. King-Richardson Co., 311 Ill. 513, 143 N.E. 198;A. L. A....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bissell Carpet Sweeper Co. v. Shane Co.
...of the facts as stated in this opinion, and the opinion by the Supreme Court of Illinois in Seagram-Distillers Corp. v. Old Dearborn Distributing Co. 1936, 363 Ill. 610, 2 N.E.2d 940, the retailer, the Old Dearborn Co., purchased the whiskey from a wholesaler knowing the wholesaler was requ......
-
Ely Lilly & Co v. Saunders
...Co., 299 U.S. 198, 57 S.Ct.[4 S.E.2d 533] 147, 81 L.Ed. 122; Seagram-Distillers Corp. v. Old Dearborn Distributing Co., 363 111. 610, 2 N.E.2d 940; Old Dearborn Distributing Co. v. Seagram-Distiller's Corp., 299 U.S. 183, 57 S.Ct. 139, 81 L.Ed. 109, 106 A.L.R. 1476 (see annotations); Houbig......
-
State v. Langley, 2058
... ... v ... Kunsman, 5 Cal.2d 446, 55 P.2d 177. See also Old ... Dearborn D. Co. v. Seagram-Distillers Corporation, 299 ... U.S. 183, 57 S.Ct ... Co. v ... Seagram-Distiller Corp., supra); that the point should, ... accordingly, be decided in this ... ...
-
General Elec. Co. v. A. Dandy Appliance Co.
...Pressure Cooker Co., 31 Del.Ch. 459, 64 A.2d 529; General Electric Co. v. Klein, Del., 106 A.2d 206; Seagram-Distillers Corp. v. Old Dearborn Distributing Co., 363 Ill. 610, 2 N.E.2d 940; Joseph Triner Corp. v. McNeil, 363 Ill. 559, 2 N.E.2d 929, 104 A.L.R. 1435; Barron Motor, Inc., v. May'......