Rackliffe Bros. Co. v. Mayflower Sales Co.

Connecticut Superior Court

Rackliffe Bros. Co. v. Mayflower Sales Co.

3 Conn. Super. Ct. 341, 3 Conn. Supp. 341, 1936 Conn. Super. LEXIS 45

CourtConnecticut Superior Court

DecidedMarch 17, 1936

DocketFile #52236

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 3 Conn. Super. Ct. 341 (Rackliffe Bros. Co. v. Mayflower Sales Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Connecticut Superior Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Rackliffe Bros. Co. v. Mayflower Sales Co., 3 Conn. Super. Ct. 341, 3 Conn. Supp. 341, 1936 Conn. Super. LEXIS 45 (Colo. Ct. App. 1936).

Pincite

Opinion

JENNINGS, J.

The brief of the defendant indicates that its chief reliance is on grounds of demurrer 4 to 11 inclusive. These invoke the protection of the Sherman and Clayton Acts which are cognisable only in the Federal courts. Pennsylvania-Dixie Cement Corp. vs. Lines Co., 119 Conn. 603, 607.

While the question in that case was on a demurrer to a cross'complaint setting up a cause of action under those sta *342 tutes, the same principle applies here. Furthermore, the terms of the contract complained of do not appear to me so oppressive as to justify interference. As to time, it could be can-celled by either party; as to space, it was limited to this State; as to character, the defendant was not forbidden to sell outside its territory but was obligated to pay a certain penalty for doing so. The definition of the arrangement as an “exclusive franchise” by the plaintiff seems to me accurate.

The case of Bridgeport vs. Aetna Indemnity Company, 91 Conn. 197, 204, disposes of the remaining grounds of demurrer to the effect that the plaintiff is entitled to relief only for toss actually sustained.

The demurrer is overruled.

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

JENNINGS, J.

The brief of the defendant indicates that its chief reliance is on grounds of demurrer 4 to 11 inclusive. These invoke the protection of the Sherman and Clayton Acts which are cognisable only in the Federal courts. Pennsylvania-Dixie Cement Corp. vs. Lines Co., 119 Conn. 603, 607.

While the question in that case was on a demurrer to a cross'complaint setting up a cause of action under those sta *342 tutes, the same principle applies here. Furthermore, the terms of the contract complained of do not appear to me so oppressive as to justify interference. As to time, it could be can-celled by either party; as to space, it was limited to this State; as to character, the defendant was not forbidden to sell outside its territory but was obligated to pay a certain penalty for doing so. The definition of the arrangement as an “exclusive franchise” by the plaintiff seems to me accurate.

The case of Bridgeport vs. Aetna Indemnity Company, 91 Conn. 197, 204, disposes of the remaining grounds of demurrer to the effect that the plaintiff is entitled to relief only for toss actually sustained.

The demurrer is overruled.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

3 Conn. Super. Ct. 341, 3 Conn. Supp. 341, 1936 Conn. Super. LEXIS 45, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rackliffe-bros-co-v-mayflower-sales-co-connsuperct-1936.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack