Knox Kershaw v. Kershaw Manufacturing Company and Royce Kershaw

Fifth Circuit

Knox Kershaw v. Kershaw Manufacturing Company and Royce Kershaw

327 F.2d 1002, 1964 U.S. App. LEXIS 6230, 1964 Trade Cas. (CCH) 71,032

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit·Decided February 27, 1964·No. 20361_1·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

This intricate action grows out of a family business relationship involving heavy railroad equipment. The appeal presents the questions of (1) whether there was a violation of the Sherman Act; 1 (2) whether the appellees violated their contract with appellant; and (3) whether the appellees can invoke the defense of pari delicto as to the alleged violations of the Sherman Act.

The thoroughness with which the trial court dealt with appellant’s contentions leaves little for us to write about. We refer to that opinion as accurately setting forth the facts of the case, the points raised by the plaintiff-appellant, and as correctly deciding each of the points raised. See Kershaw v. Kershaw Manufacturing Co., M.D.Ala., 1962, 209 F.Supp. 447.

We think that no good purpose would be served by writing a further opinion. We adopt what was written by the district court as the opinion of this Court and, based upon it, the judgment entered by the court below is

Affirmed.

1

. 15 U.S.C.A. §§ 1 and 2.

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

PER CURIAM:

This intricate action grows out of a family business relationship involving heavy railroad equipment. The appeal presents the questions of (1) whether there was a violation of the Sherman Act; 1 (2) whether the appellees violated their contract with appellant; and (3) whether the appellees can invoke the defense of pari delicto as to the alleged violations of the Sherman Act.

The thoroughness with which the trial court dealt with appellant’s contentions leaves little for us to write about. We refer to that opinion as accurately setting forth the facts of the case, the points raised by the plaintiff-appellant, and as correctly deciding each of the points raised. See Kershaw v. Kershaw Manufacturing Co., M.D.Ala., 1962, 209 F.Supp. 447.

We think that no good purpose would be served by writing a further opinion. We adopt what was written by the district court as the opinion of this Court and, based upon it, the judgment entered by the court below is

Affirmed.

1

. 15 U.S.C.A. §§ 1 and 2.

Knox Kershaw v. Kershaw Manufacturing Company and Royce Kershaw, 327 F.2d 1002, 1964 U.S. App. LEXIS 6230, 1964 Trade Cas. (CCH) 71,032 (5th Cir. 1964).

Pincite

327 F.2d 1002 (Knox Kershaw v. Kershaw Manufacturing Company and Royce Kershaw) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related