Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion ( 1939 )

House Bill JJo. 231, pro9idlnC thst It it conflicts
oith State anti-trust laws it shnll bo null end void
hold in aohfllct with such anti-trunt Iswe and there:
l-or0 invalid.
--^- _ -- _-_-
-
OFFICE C!PTRD ATTORIGY C'i~DX~L
June 28, 1939
conorableW. Lae,O'Daniel
Governorof Tcxss
hustin,Texas
ODlnion Do. o-lC33
Cl: Vnlidity of Route Bill Do. 231
We hsvo for ackuowled``ant your l~ettcrof Juuc 22, 1939,
wheroln you eck the opi.nionof this Dcpnrtmnt upon certain
qu?stiox rolatla:j to tha vnlldity of IlouseDill iio.231, the
*fair trade*'Act, the questions oo!:cdbeing as l'ollows:
"1. Does the Caption of the bill, under the
Constitution, enfficlcntly set out the purpose and
cover the subfect mttrr of the bill? I call your
particular uttention to that part or the Cnption
which says that it la for the purpose of protcctinC
tmdc-x?rk omors, diotributors and the Ccncrol pub-
110 o~aiunt injurious and uncconoxic practices in
tho distribution of articles of standard quality
undor diotlnCuished tmdemrk, brand or nane, etc.,
and would like for you to advise ~19 if this in sui-
fioiently consistent with the seation of the bill
deali% with the subject and if it does, in fact,
amply with the Constitution in @vine notice of the
oontents of the bill? Plcnsc also mska your nnswer
applioable'to each and eoery part of the Caption.
*2. Is there any pmoision of the Act in its
purpose end final result in confliot tith Chapter 3,
Title 19 of t?e Penal Oode of this State, or with
Title 120 of tho Revleed Civil Statutes of 19257
qn ooaneatlon dth the above I anderstand that
tlkm 16 ‘h q&egitiou 08 to wlmthcror not the
almyr
kind 0f~c0ntreot6’0ont~p~ut0a in thb Act aro in
violationor some nati-truststetuts. Ir the oontraota
describedare not ia vlolstlonof the statute.it
would becoae difficultto understandthe Purposeof
this Act.
"3. If the manufacturer or other peroon sclliu~
to a dealer in Texas enter into a cootreot with hln
wiith'the provlrions stated, and he aCroon and obliCatea
himself to oell the Coo& at a price stipulated by
such mnufncturer, or other person, does ho, by reason
Iron.F. Loo C'Dsnicl, June 20, 1930, l?zCo2.
of this Act or euch contr-ct. hwc my protection
acninst such n4anufoctuicr or ot!lcrn~roon i'urnichinc
[:oods to cnothcr ~lrchont in the o&c vicinity for
Gal0 at fldil'foront price, or no price at oil? In
other words, if one local dcolcr LC-kes a contract
forthc purchnao of co%.oditioo for rennle with the
mnufocturor and arreec to sell the::at a fixed price,
can hc by the term of this bill h,jvu nn opreormnt
in hia contract thct the rmnufncturcr will not sell
to one of bit coxJP?titorsct 0 different price, or
no Eircd price? If such provision should bo in the
contract vtould it be a lawful provision.?
"4. I would like for you to cdvice no the
mooning and effect of Paragraph 2 of Seotion 1, recd-
ine as follo,xi:
'That v~ilfully'and knoiirin$yofferin; for
salt or cellinS any cor3aodityat less than
the tninixnd price ntipulotcd in any contract
cntercd into pursuant to tho proricions of
this Act, whether the per-on eo offcri~ for.
sale or sellin;. is or is not a party to such
contract, in unfair co!lpetitionand is action-
able nt the.suit of any person dnna::cdtbora-
by. ...'
"Do you consider this lan!:u:rco
cufficiently defi-
nite and ccrtein-to bc binding7
"5. Ilocco advise *co in Pcrticulnr if pnro~rcph 3
of Section 2 is in violation of any Sedoral levror, if
effcctivc, uould it onend, uodify or repeal any of'the
Anti-Truut 1``s of the Stats of Terns?
"6. Is any portion of said Act in conflict \;lth
the Constitution end law of the IlnitcdCtntcc or of
the stntn or TCXC87"
Sincc.uz hnvo reached the conclusion that House Bill Do.
231 is'in contrnvcntion of and conflicts 74th the anti-trust
l~vlsof the State of Texas, and thercforc, by virtue of the
PrOViSiOns of Section 7 of House Bill No. 231, is 0 nullity
and of no force or effect whatoocver, It becozss unneceescry
ct this tin0 to enSaS In the extensive study neccosary in
order to enable us lntelli~ently to ensv!erother quostlono
of const1tutlonolity ana statutory construction proeonted 10
your inquiry.
We-have presentcd in thie House Bill emote& by the
,Je&lelatureai the Stite'oi Texm the novel aa& peoullar
rltustfonof a lecidatlve body prwldin(:that the Aot deslGn-
ed to relieve oortaln types of oontracts iron tho prohlbltlons
contained in the anti-trust laws of tbe State of Texas. shell
be decned null and void and of no force and offcct WhntsOaVcr
if it is effective to eccozpllsh the desired Purpose. IiOVCl
and poculinr though thlc situation nay bc, it is neverthsleos
the duty of this Dcportncnt and of all officers of the Sov-
erment charged with the duty of cnforcinC such lew to Give
full efEcct to the cxprocsad lntcntlon of the Le~isloturo.
Section 7 of F!ouseBill No. 231 reads 0s follows:
non. :‘I.
Lee O~Dzc~icl,Zuno 78, 1939, I’a~o3.
lWothin;:in this Act ohnll cvcr bc conotrtied
as arzndin3, no::ifyin::, saspcndlnf*or rcpeslln:;
any of the la::-sof this St.ato dzflnlnficm) pro-
hibitinC trirts, nono~olicc, and concpiracics
against trudc, viith p~rticulnr rcfcrencc to C!lapter
3, Title 19, Fenol Code cl’the Stctc of Tcms, nnd
Tl.tlc126, Heviscd Civil Ctctutct of Tercs, 1925,
aud if any provision of this Act is hc1.dto bc in
oont~cvontion of or coni‘lictoltiiany of said
lcwa, tbon said provision shall be null and void
aridof no force or effect.”
Sections 1, 2, 3, and 4 of DoufieBill No. 231 read as
follms:
“Section 1. That no contrcct rolatinC to the
sale oz rcrclo of a commodity which bonrs, or the
label cr cohtcnt of which bcsrs, the trade-r&ark,
brand, or no::8of the producer or cri:ncrof such
oomodity, nnd which is in fuir oud open coxpetl-
tion v:ith coxioditicn oi”the s*r:cCcnaral class
produced by others, if not in violation of Clmpter
3, Title 19, Penal Code of the State of Texas or
Title 126, Rcvincd Civil Statute3 of Texgr,, 19%
and if mic I’ora period not in oxc3s:iof two (21
y.:srsfro:1the date of its execution, shnl.1be
dconed in violation of my I.&I; of the State of
Texas by ro~coh of any of t!ic~Yollo?:ln;:
provisions
xay bo coctained in Each contract:
vr!~ich
“1. That the buyer will not resell
such cora~o~ity,belo:! the mininur~ grice stipulated
by the vendor.
“2. That vrilfullyand knov?inClyoffer-
ir;Sror sale or sellin::any comodity at less than
the z&niml: Drice stipulated in any contract entered
into purcuant to the provisions of this Act, whether
the person so offering,for sale or sclli~ is or is
not a party to such contract, lo unfair coapctition
and is actiomble at the suit of any person dcxaged
thereby.
Tbat the vendee or produoor require
any dealer% rrhozshe nay roooll such camodity to
agree that ho ``111not, in turn, resell,balm the
nin5x~ruprice +xulatob by such reador or by rnab .
tendee.
“1. ic OlO.SinJJ OUt the Oimer’s GtOC@
for the purpose of dlscontlnulnS dellvery of any
such comodlty; provided, homver. that such stock
is first oficrcd to the rmmfccturcr of such stock
Gt thf? O*i~iIl7ll lnvoicc price, at lenst ten (10)
(Jr.ys
b,,ro:.co,:c>stock shall bi: ofl’orodfor sale to
the public.
”2 . Khen the Coodn are dns$Ccd or ‘dater-
iorntod 111 qunlity, and notlca io ;:ivcb to the
public thereof.
IfOli.Y. Lot o’rl~nlol,June 2C, 1989, lnC,e4.
“3. Ry any oi’ficcractin: under the ordorn
or any court.
‘!EOC.3. The follozin2 terms, as urod in this
Act, am hereby dafincd as follo~;s:
``Froduccr~ mz3ns Cromr, bn?ccr,maker, manu-
facturor, nor publisher.
“‘Co:.>nodity’
means ony rubjoct of oozmerco.
“SCC. 4. This Act shall not npply to any contraot
or cqrccmont betv:ocn the produco?s or bctricenvrholcsalero
or betv;sonrotallers,’a6 to sole or resale priors. It
is furt!xr specificslly provided that suoh contracts
betwcn said parties are horcby declared void.”
Title 12G, I&vised Civil Statuteo of the Stat.0 of Texas,
is the Title of our Civil Stntutos rclotinC to trusts an&
conspiraoico a:rainsttrudo. The ~wovisiono of such title,
applicable.to the oP.aract?r of c~rsmonta with *:ihichXouse
Bill No. 231 is conoerncd, are quoted belo?~:
“Article 7426 . A ‘trust’ is a oombinotion
of capital, skill, or acts by t?:o or morn parsons,
.firms, corporations, or oseoolations of perzons,
or cith.orTao or more of the::, for cithor, nny,
or all OF tho folloulnC purpocos:
“1. To crents, or which may tond to create,
or carry out rsatrictions in trade or oo~meroo
... or to crcato or onrry out restrictions in the
free pursuit of any businoco authorized or permitted
by laws of this.Etato.
“2. To fix, maintain, increase, or reduce the
price of’merchcndiao, produce, or commodities ...
‘c5. To arovont or lessen competition in tho
manufacture, mnk,inC, trnnsportation, sale or pur-
ohaso of acrohandicc, produce, or commodities ...
“4. To fix or naintoin any standnrd or tiguro
whcroby the price of any article or cor~lodityof
morohandiso, produce, or ooFzzroo ... shall be in
any manner nffootod, controlled, or established.
“5.. To make, enter into, maintain, execute
or carry out any contract, obligation or uCreemsnt
by which the parties thereto bind, or havo bound
themselves not to oell, dispose of, trans_oortor
to prepnrc for riirkct or trunsportation any article
or commodity ... or by whlc!rthey shsll aCrea in
any manner to !ceepthe prioo of suoh article or
commodity ... nt a fixed or Crndod figure, or by
which they shsll in any mannor affect or maintain
the price of any commodity or article ... to pre-
clude a froo and unrestricted competition amonf:
tberlcclvcsor others in the sale ... of any ouch
article or co>!!lodity,or by :;hichthay shill aCroc
to pool, co:lbine,or unite ony intorostn tboy may
have in connection with the r:alaor purchase Of
any article or co:-modity ... whereby its prioo or
such oharp ml&. br? in any n::nncr nffcctcd.
Bon. !?.Lee O’Daniol,
-
June CC, 1939, Face 5.
“6. To rqulate, fix or l.indttho outpat of
my nrticlo or co.mmodityv:hichmay be monufoctur-
ed, mined, produced or sold, ...
“7. To~cbstoin from enCagi.nCin or contlnuins
busincos ,,or rron the purchase or sale 0r nbrchan-
disc, prcduco or oo?modities psrtially or entirely
within tho Stat0 of Texas, or any portion thereof.”
hrticle 7429 provides as i’olla;vs:
“Any and all trusts, nonopolies and oou-
spiraoics in reotrnint of trade, as heroin dofined,
ara prohibited and declsrod to be illeCa1.”
hrticle 7430 providoo in effect ‘that tho charter of an,y
corporntion c:rwtor+d under tho law of Texan which may be .
euilty of violotin3 any provision of the Title 1X, may be
forfeited at th? rcquost oi’tho httornsy General, if in the
judcxent of tho Court trying the 0~159,the public int.erost
requires such forfeiture.
Article 7437 provides:
“Any contract or sCroer:ont in violation of
any provision of this subdivision shull be absolute-
ly void and not enforcible either in low or oqulty.``
Tha balance of Title 13!0contains msny othor provisions
dotiGncd to make offectivo the prohibitions contained in
subdivinion 1 of the Tit1.e.
Articles 1632, lG33, 1634, oontainod in Chapter 3,
Title 19, of our Fanal Code, arc but verbatim copiss of
Az%icles 7426, 742.7,and 7428 ol’our Revised Civil Statutes,
referred to abova.
Article 1635 of our Penal Codo provides that whoever
vlolntoc any provision of such Chsptor shnll be confined
in ths ponitontiory not loss than two nor more than ten
Years, The belanca of the Titla contains provisions not
hecessnry to bo notiood in connection with the discussion
involved horoin.
Even a cosunl reading; of the provisions of the above
statutes disclo;:csthat thoy wre dcnignod to prevent the
lixir``of prioas of artiolos of ooxxrco in any mannor by
the combined efforts of tv:o or more individuals, firms,
Corporations, or associations or pcrcons. Tho anti-truet
lnws oonstituto a 1oCislativn reooznition that oombinstions,
hzvlnC ror thoir purpo-c or effcctin;:by their acts the fir-
inC of prices, nro obnoxious to the public interest, and
dicplny a desire to enact ooaprohcncivo laws to render suoh
i113(;ol,uncnforoiblc, and puoichoblc criminally,
l’rice-l=ixin~
no rzrttorhov it may be souCht to bu ncconplishod, rrhothcr
dlxotly or indir3ctly.
so fer nc o:,xranti-truct 1~s condemn co-collod “VW-
t.iC.11” :,uts lc~iolativc adoption
price-fixin::, they ‘coilr:tituto
rocoyition of the otntemnnt rondoby the SUprO:lOCOUl’t
t!n:l
of the United States in tho cam of Strauo VS. Victor Tnlk-
in- !.:achine Co., 243 lJ. S. 490, Gl L. Ed. Oi,O, that attempts
to 0011 property for o full price and yet to place rcotraints
upon its lurthor olicnstion, have hem obnorioun and hstoful
to the law frcilthe days of Lord Co‘ze,bcaaurs obnozioua
to t!lcpublic interest.
In order to'undorstsnd thoro;t::hlY thu nnturr of tho
problm prosontcd in conncctio!lr:ith such lwc es the ohs
under consideration, it is perhnpn cdvicablo thnt vzo rcvicw
the ar~umnts ih favor of and a~alnst such 1n:vs. It is
contcndcd by ndvocntos of such lo,:iolntionthat the mum-
fncturer of'trsdo-marked or broddcd nrticlcs of co:mxco hao
a vital intcrc::tin tho Coo3 vzill cnCendcred by the sale
of such Coo& vith his brand or tmdc-sark upon thorrl;that
price-cuttiaz in such goods by rct.cilorsto v/ha71 ths r*onu-
fccturcr or distributor has ~olc?t!:cmresults in danaCe to
the r~nufaCtul~CP'~: COO4 Uill; thst the dn:mCc thus sustained
inoronoss the mnufactursr's costs and,iaRnirs his ability
to nsrket his coodo and ronults in incrsaccd prices for such
,-oodsto the buyin: ~mbllo. (7 A.L.R. 453-43a). It lo
argued that Vertical" price-fixing;--thatis, price-firing,
on a bran&xl co:n;odityin coxpetition v!ith other branded
commodities of a similar class, by a~recnont botwon the
r~anufnctureror the distributor and the dealers in such
cocmodity, cs to the oricas for which his coxodity alone
nay be sold, is bcncficinl to tho public Ccncrelly; vrhcrcns,
it is cdnittod tht '*horizontnl'price-fixing aCro-s.ntc--
that is, price-fixinC botv;ocnr:anu1eoturoro or dealers in
similsr cox:odi.tissnnrmnlly in cor:petitionr&oh vith the
other, is decidedly ininioul to the public Interest.
On ths contrary, the arCumentc npninst such price-fixing
arc phrased as folloxs by the l'odcrclTrade Carzlissionreport
for the ficonl ycor ending Juno ZO, 1910:
"I. The powr to fix prices will usually be
abused by the OlkW2C Of too 10~ Proms;
"2. Renslc prioo r~aintenanco protects and
ancouracas inofficicnt jobbcrs and prevents elinina-
tion in the over-crorldcdfield of r&ldlc;wn;
"3. It tends to secure cooperation of Ccnlors
and to prcjudicc the:4a&net brands xhose prices
are not fixed;
"4. It forces other dealers to atteapt the
control of prices;
n5. It oncournces Ccneral otandurdization of
prices end elimination of normal COnpetitiOn among
dedsrs; and,
"6. It forcas the ultinato oonsuzsr to Roy
hidhcr prices and leaves him no borPinin3 Powr
with rocpect to tho article concerned." (7 A.L.R. 45s)
It io, of course, tho proroeativo of tbo LcCislal;urO, in
the oxercico of its conctitutiorml authority to oriCinoto such
lerislo'tio:l tb!n, ana of t!loCovomor, in the crsrcise of
.I.s
AIo oonstitut;.onol.outhorityto vcto,or npprove, to Salonce
thcco argumnt,s and concidorntions tho on0 ayalnst .tha other,
ootor:linetheir validity, end to tnko such octlon es, to tllanl,
eppesrs to bo in the intcrcst of the public ConerallY.
In LhC Ob~O!lCO Of Oily COilstitution:~l inhi:,ition;noitber
this DCPa~V:.etLt nor the courtn uould h?vc any rl.i;htful eon-
corn :-At!1t!:cq~l0~3tioll
of ptlbliopolJcy irvolvcd, Since
t!:ur:;?to~:~;i~xtion
or th?.t question or pubL!,io pa,cy is
~:ovmn xl by fioilin;:~of fact, ::nc: iJ!O?o:!i:r
to r:2koSllCll
fiAi::;s of f::ot is by our Comtitutlon c~01uSi~ly vOStOd
in ti'.cLo~i;.lntureSnd in tho Cbi-f X:cooutlve of the St3t9.
It folls:iStbct if the Act h2d uilcqL"ivocallgolesptcd
r.achqyozi2:nt.o3 s nra contmplntod by it:;term fron the
provisionc of the anti-trust 108s of the Stat!: of Tome,
this Dcgartr.cntshouldbe concernsd only xith t:-.equmtion
of its conctiV~tion2lity. The Act, hcwevor, does not mire
such uocquirocal oxmption,~but cxprcssly provides tbot
if t.?
0 contr:ictcsanctio;xd ty it era vior:,tivr?or t!:ose
State anti-tlust lovs clreuly onzctcd rind in full force
nnd cfl'c0t t!:oAct itself, not tbo imti-trus ln!Ys,r.l!all
be null Sn(:1
void nnd of no force Sad ol'feot. ‘0 that it
becoxos nocexi;ry for this Dzpnrtxnt r?ttho k 1tsct to
conriidcrthe qxstion of vhcth.crt!E Act by 'it's own tori:3
12;a nullity, and thl:,qucttion bcin~; dutcrninzd in t:?o
affir3stire, Soy quOtAion of conotitutiocclify baoozos rloot.
By nu::::rousdocioionn in tho St.nteof Texas, our courts
have detcr:.:icaii
t!xL 03r Stat.0anti-trust lo?;Sro:ld3r
absolutely n:lllant:void VSrtionl" pl.lcc-fixfnf; cqroezzonts
ontwcd into b:lt!:cen xionufucturors or dir?.ri~ultors
ond re-
tailers, :;heri;bythe rotoilcr n;,7,rcec
to roS,ollon Srticlc
of oome1'co in tJ:iaState only St e xioo fissd by the
I:onufScturer or dirtributor of Such nrticlc of cc:xsroo.
In the ci:seof Coddoll VS. ::Stkins (C.C.A. Son Antonio)
227 9. V!.m't, t.l?C
court mid:
"If by the fores of this contract qnd the
controlciven thcreun>als in ths OQCO of Tri-State Soles Co. Vs.
Rational Autoxltio ::ochina Co., 38 8. iY. (2d) 059.
In each of the follozinS cases, tho contracts with
vhlch the courts v,oro dealing prorllnontlylnvolvod acre+
ncnts bctv:oonnaaufocturars or distributors and dcelsrs to
whom they wxo sellinS their yoods that such dcolaro should
resell such Sooda only et retail prices fixed by the maw-
focturer or dietributor. In oath cnso, such "vortioal'
price-fixing q (;roaxentwas held to be void because in Vlo-
lation of our Ststo anti-trust laws:
vi.T. RawloiSh Co. vs. Ds?:cr, et al (C.C.A. Texarkena).
117 s. R. (2d) 1117.
Karathon Oil Co. vs. Rodlay, et al (C.C.A. Ft. ?iorth),
107 5. V'. (2d) Oes, writ di~!ri~scd.
EcConnon vs. Ralston, et al, 275 8. 1?. 165.
XoConnon vs. I!nrshnll, et al (C.C.A. Texnrkana), 280
s. iY.323.
a. T. Rav:lcieh Co. vs. BraCberry'(C.C.A. Ar,erillo),
290 S. >I.870.
71. T. Rnwloigh Co. vs. Rudeon, et 01 (C.O.A. Rl IOOO),
200 3. iv. 775.
v. T. RnviloiShCo. vs. Gober, ct nl*(C.C.A- ?aco),
I3 S. 71. (2d) S45.
J. R. v;atkinoI:cdionl Co.~va. Johnson, ot al (C.C.A.
Son Antonio), lG:!S. L:.394.
In each of the sbovo cltod oo!xs Jurl refwr.:d to,
there ycro ‘oth.?rvioli:tlouco!'tho out!-tmst lo\~:s,j.nvol.vod
finsuch contracts, SUOh 65 ~O~l211?~2IIt!; t?;:.:t ti7.ac.OOci:i
bo
sold by the rctcllor only in c czrtnin tcixlt.crry, or t&t
the dcalor should bind hi:Gclf to co11 no otbm {;oods of
o sllnllarchnractcr, or th;t the dmler dfl.1'ota his ontire
tlr:eonly to the hole of the p2::ticulnrccr.i;6il:*'c :mrchnn-
dloe; but it is oppcront i'roi;l
tho follo;.lr.:: c:lcesreforrcd
to balm t!,:lt tho stipulotinn In tl:ocoutx,.ct>i.:hich chiofly
conccrnod tho courts wus thnt fixlfizprice::, and ti::ltthe
othor Ptlpul5tionc roforra~ to mro rcfcrdr3 Vi tho courts,
es they are by the anti--trustloo;:,ao viu:ous ond coatrnry
to tho public iMcrc:t becnuce they afford ef'fectivc:~xm
by Yzhlch pri63 control nay bc mlntolnod.
In tha csse of J. R. !%tkino !~:odicalCo. vs. Johnson
et al (C.C.2. Son Antonio), lG2 S. VT.384, t?m Cm-t, in
di6tfntl\ishillC the :'U~;'cmCourt c2coo of Idb6i%y;16 CD.
vr. Feist GO., nnQ Fuqa 78. Fiwrin~ Co., ro::clks:
'I...they nrc clomly dlntingsi:5hnblo. In
the Fuqnn caao the fmrtics sourht to con!.rol
th6 Pl'iCC nlld SirlC Of t!lc b.:cr oftcl t!lu title
theroto v~stxl f.n the purchd::x?, ns ~011~ 6% to
dopriro the buyer end sollor ol t!w r,i~htto (:s:l
wit3 any other jx?rsonowith roforcnce to the EWZB
cozziodltyin the oc::wtarritory durlw: the tsm
of the cont.rnct. In tho F'eist cast?no cfrort me
rude to co:;troloi'lixit tho Ciq~orition of tke
(;ooas ... but to bind the soiler to 3511 tiresme
class of GOOR:: to no other pxrson in the ~'s;:o
territory i'orn lirlltcdtlxa. The contrwt clcnrly
shirjlcthat Feint P-.Cwp?ruy vw1'0 in no :mmm lirlitcd
in ttc?irri::htto cull or to fix the prim or the
(:oods or in my mmcr to coriLro1or llr.:lt tho
free and Unro6tXIiIlsd tiTffi6 in th0 :~OOds cold
oftor thc.titlu thcrzto v3stcd in l‘clst;: Coqmy,
The corn con be mid of'the coca of Xclipoc i%iat
Cmpnny vs. NW Froccso rtoo?ln;. Co:'1>ouy."
In the 6660 of Double Seal Hin;:Co.x:mnyvs. Keith,
(C.C.A. Pt. ;:'orth), 107 S. i'l.(2d) 428, writ roi'uoed,the
Court rooo,';nirud thnt if the oontroct there undm consid-
orotlon bsd boon oue of rslo, rnthnr then one of ogonoy,
and hn(lfixed the rcsalc prlco$ at vihlohthe 00n'~10cliti6~
!nust bo rold, it would I!;vobcon in violetion of our Statc
anti-trust laws.
In the OGL:C of tiu Enmel Point Co. Vs. Davis (G.C.A.
Ft. Korth), G3 S. IV. (7.d)RCl, the Court, lu holdin!!that
a contract for the sale of paint not ctipulntinz tbot thz?
distributor S1oulG be tho co1.0dlntributor in tho torrltory
deolC:nateduor binding him to ccl].at o fl:ml prloo, did
not rioloto Stato,nnti-trust law, rennrks:
VW Century ;.:anufnctiirin: Co. vs. Bohouror
(VOXOS CC:X!~:::~O~ 6r hp 61.:;) 45 L;. .::. (?a) 560,
is not in pglnt, slnc2 the contmct tllorc conctruud
dld stipuloto 8 fixed price for which the articles
oontrnctcd for should bo cold.*
It nuct bz notod, of oourcc, tlat tho ceeo of Rcw
cc!:tury'JInnui"acturlny,
Co. VS. Cohourar ho3.dD contract to
p?~rchesepoint contoinln: proVl;:io:wrixilg:tho mm10
price Of point to bn in violation of the l?o&rcl enti-
trust 1~s; but it is api:nrciIttlmt the Fo;t Yorth Cwrt
of CiVll Ap?cnlo conntracd tl:rct
03s::as equally n~plfcnblc
to our State anti-trust lnxo.
In the moo of :I. T. Rarlei~b Co. VS. Flotohcr, et cl,
(C.C.A. Tcxlrkana), 275 S. 1. 210, the Coupt ctatcd thot
the fact Wet D.buyer, puro!acl`` nrtlclcs ootrl:;ht,Vas
ln~i'ely~ovorncd by the scllcr*c "l;u:::L'.?3tcG
prlcob" in dir;-
posing of articlea bou;ht did not 111and of itself ooneti-
tuto 6 viol;:tionof State m&l-trust lew. The Court says:
There lb no find.lngthat it UUB a part of the
contract l-orrlotcksr to ye;011 the r,oodcat-
p~lcas listed to hl&. The fmre feet that 'in
di~po~lu::of‘the products purclasod by hlx,'
TletchJr 'I:23lcrcely ~OV0XIlGd by 'n B'Ji``\OSted
retell grim list of JI1‘OduCtcq v;ouldnot, In
i,tcolf,bc .=I
vlol:jtlon of'tho ctatutec."
That csee, themfore, turns upon the failura to be&b-
lioh either the n~roc.;:ant
or the cuctox i!zply:ni-
en ayrcc-
mnt., to rerzcllnt priccc fired by the co;!wny, the court
ncceccnrlly lsplyln: that lr Flotchor h?d obll;;qtodhirxolf
to rcasll at prlccs fixed by the co~ipony,tbsro v~ouldhnve
cxistcd cuch n cozblnntion 86 in redo unlwful by tho nnti-
truot lo~.zor TCXI~G,sun such contrnots v:ouldhow been
void.
And in the mce of K. T. Rawleigh Co. vs. Fish, (C.C.A.
Xer;tlcnd),290 2. 2. 798, the Cowt, in conetruin~ b ooztract
for the snle of hoods es not limitln~ olther territory,
rccclo price, or requiring voadee to sell only vcndorfs
coed:;,and thorcforo not viol.ntin:-our ttetc cnti-trust
lavrb,a@n hplics that if tke oontrt~ot:v:dflxod the rc-
oale pricrr,it v;ould have boon in violetion of our enti-
trust lam.
And in the onse of Y!.T.~Rwloigh Co. vc. lIarpar (Co+
nission 0r Ap>cnls), 17 u. Y. (Pd) 455, Ia0 Corx&.sion or
hppoalo, ``licr- t,?ls jury found tlm t the ar,raomnt xwde pro-
vldod t!mt i!llrgrwe to dcvoto bin entfro tirnc,skill, OtC.,
to selling cooidspuro!mscd of the company by him, but t!mt
lt did not:conttzglots or provldc that hlr:torritorj %s
to be limltcd or that the rosalo price w R to be filed by
tllo co:~pci:yh&i that the oontrect did not violsto our Stnte
entl-trust Inwe, but hem n&n the intimntion ie olonr that
if the oontract had provided for tho fixing of the remlo
,7rlce,the coul’t would hove held it to bc Void.
Other autho``ltloofrom thlc Et::t