Earley v. Co-Operative Pure Milk Ass'n

Ohio Supreme Court

Earley v. Co-Operative Pure Milk Ass'n

152 N.E. 390, 115 Ohio St. 185, 115 Ohio St. (N.S.) 185, 4 Ohio Law. Abs. 95, 1926 Ohio LEXIS 290

CourtOhio Supreme Court

DecidedJune 8, 1926

Docket19553

StatusPublished

This text of 152 N.E. 390 (Earley v. Co-Operative Pure Milk Ass'n) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Ohio Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Earley v. Co-Operative Pure Milk Ass'n, 152 N.E. 390, 115 Ohio St. 185, 115 Ohio St. (N.S.) 185, 4 Ohio Law. Abs. 95, 1926 Ohio LEXIS 290 (Ohio 1926).

Pincite

Opinion

By the Court.

This was an action to recover damages arising out of an alleged unlawful combination in restraint of trade in violation of the Valentine Anti-Trust Laws, (Sections 6390 to 6397, inclusive, General Code). It also involves an interpretation of Sections 10186-1 to 10186-26, General Code. All these statutes were considered and interpreted in List v. Burley Tobacco Growers’ Co-Operative Ass’n., No. 19180, 114 Ohio St., 361, 151 N. E., 471, recently decided by this court. In the court of common pleas a judgment was recovered which was reversed on error by the Court of Appeals; it being stated in the entry that no illegal act was proven which would warrant a recovery, and that court thereupon proceeded to render the judgment which the trial court should have rendered and dismissed plaintiff’s petition. Having carefully examined the record, this court is of the opinion that, when the evidence adduced in the trial court is applied to the law as declared *186 in List v. Burley Tobacco Growers’ Co-Operative Ass’n., supra, no illegal conduct was disclosed.

The' judgment of the Court of Appeals will therefore be affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

Marshall, C. J., Jones, Matthias, Day, Allen and Robinson, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

By the Court.

This was an action to recover damages arising out of an alleged unlawful combination in restraint of trade in violation of the Valentine Anti-Trust Laws, (Sections 6390 to 6397, inclusive, General Code). It also involves an interpretation of Sections 10186-1 to 10186-26, General Code. All these statutes were considered and interpreted in List v. Burley Tobacco Growers’ Co-Operative Ass’n., No. 19180, 114 Ohio St., 361, 151 N. E., 471, recently decided by this court. In the court of common pleas a judgment was recovered which was reversed on error by the Court of Appeals; it being stated in the entry that no illegal act was proven which would warrant a recovery, and that court thereupon proceeded to render the judgment which the trial court should have rendered and dismissed plaintiff’s petition. Having carefully examined the record, this court is of the opinion that, when the evidence adduced in the trial court is applied to the law as declared *186 in List v. Burley Tobacco Growers’ Co-Operative Ass’n., supra, no illegal conduct was disclosed.

The' judgment of the Court of Appeals will therefore be affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

Marshall, C. J., Jones, Matthias, Day, Allen and Robinson, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

152 N.E. 390, 115 Ohio St. 185, 115 Ohio St. (N.S.) 185, 4 Ohio Law. Abs. 95, 1926 Ohio LEXIS 290, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/earley-v-co-operative-pure-milk-assn-ohio-1926.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack