The Pep Boys, Manny Moe Jack, of California v. Pyroil Sales Co Kunsman v. Max Factor Co, s. 55

• Decision Date: 07 December 1936
• Docket Number: 79,Nos. 55,s. 55
• Citation: 57 S.Ct. 147,81 L.Ed. 122,299 U.S. 198
• Parties: THE PEP BOYS, MANNY, MOE & JACK, OF CALIFORNIA, v. PYROIL SALES CO., Inc. KUNSMAN v. MAX FACTOR & CO. et al
• Court: U.S. Supreme Court

299 U.S. 198

57 S.Ct. 147

81 L.Ed. 122

THE PEP BOYS, MANNY, MOE & JACK, OF CALIFORNIA,

v PYROIL SALES CO., Inc.

KUNSMAN

v. MAX FACTOR & CO. et al.

Nos. 55, 79.

Argued Nov. 12, 1936.

Decided Dec. 7, 1936.

Appeals from the Supreme Court of the State of California.

Messrs. John W. Davis, of New York City, and Irving M. Walker, of Los Angeles, Cal., for appellants The Pep Boys and others.

Mr. Jules C. Goldstone, of Los Angeles, Cal., for appellant Kunsman.

Messrs. Edward S. Rogers, of New York City, Stanley A. Weigel, of San Francisco, Cal., and Karl D. Loos, of Washington, D.C. (Messrs. John C. Mead and Henry Haves, both of Los Angeles, Cal., of counsel), for appellees.

Mr. Justice SUTHERLANDdelivered the opinion of the Court.

These appeals involve the question of the constitutionality of sections 1and1 1/2 of the California Fair Trade Act, as amended, Cal.St.1931, p. 583, Cal.St.1933, p. 793, Deering's Gen.Laws of California, 1931, vol. 3, and Supp.1933, Act 8782, printed in the margin.^*It will be seen upon comparison that they are substantially identical with sections 1and2 of the Illinois act (Smith-Hurd Ill.Stats. c. 121 1/2, §§ 188, 189), which we have just sustained in Old Dearborn Distributing Company v. Seagram-Distillers Corporation, 299 U.S. 183, 57 S.Ct. 139, 81 L.Ed. 109.

In the present cases suits were brought by appellees against appellants to enjoin the latter from alleged violations of section 1 1/2.The sufficiency of the complaints was challenged by demurrer, the facts alleged being, therefore, admitted.The trial courts, upon these facts, held the section invalid, and appeals were taken to the state supreme court.In that court, No. 79 was first heard; the view of the trial courts was rejected; and the section held to be constitutionally valid.5 Cal.(2d) 446, 55 P.(2d) 177.Upon the authority of that decision, No. 55 was also reversed.5 Cal.(2d) 784, 55 P.(2d) 194, 1186.The decrees of the trial courts entered on the orders sustaining demurrers without leave to amend were re- versed; and respondents(appellants here) having elected to stand on their demurrers, the trial courts were ordered to enter judgment in favor of appellants(appellees here), as prayed for in their complaints.

The questions presented and the facts involved are substantially the same as those which were present in the two suits involved in the Old Dearborn Distributing Company Case; and upon that authority, the decrees entered in the court below are affirmed.

Mr. Justice STONE took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.

*§ 1.No contract relating to the sale or resale of a commodity which bears, or the label or content of which bears the trademark, brand, or name of the producer or owner of such commodity and which is in fair and open competition with commodities of the same general class produced by others shall be deemed in violation of any law of the state of California by reason of any of the following provisions which may be contained in such contract:

1.That the buyer will not resell such commodity except at the price stipulated by the vendor.

2.That...