Home/Fourth Circuit/Schwing Motor Co. v. Hudson Sales Corp.

Schwing Motor Co. v. Hudson Sales Corp.

239 F.2d 176
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit·Decided December 17, 1956·No. Nos. 7220, 7221·Published·Cited by 18 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

These are appeals from orders dismissing on the pleadings actions by two local automobile dealers to recover damages •under the Sherman and Clayton antitrust acts from an automobile manufacturer’s sales corporation and a local dealer to whom an exclusive dealership or agency had been granted. The plaintiffs had formerly held dealership con[177] tracts with the sales corporation of the manufacturer for dealing in the make of automobiles in question; but there is no claim of right to recover damages on account of breach of contract; and there is no allegation or contention that the exclusive dealership was a part of or incidental to any conspiracy or agreement to monopolize or restrain trade between manufacturers or wholesale dealers. The facts are fully stated in the opinion of the District Judge and we agree with him that no violation of the Sherman or Clayton Acts, 15 U.S.C.A. §§ 1-7, 12 et seq., 15 note is alleged for reasons adequately stated in his opinion, which is adopted as the opinion of this court. See Schwing Motor Co. v. Hudson Sales Corporation, D.C., 138 F.Supp. 899.

Affirmed.

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

Schwing Motor Co. v. Hudson Sales Corp., 239 F.2d 176 (4th Cir. 1956).

239 F.2d 176 (Schwing Motor Co. v. Hudson Sales Corp.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

North American Soccer League v. National Football League
505 F. Supp. 659 (S.D. New York, 1980)
Speed Auto Sales, Inc. v. American Motors Corp.
477 F. Supp. 1193 (E.D. New York, 1979)
Wedgewood Investment Corp. v. International Harvester Co.
613 P.2d 620 (Court of Appeals of Arizona, 1979)
Cernuto, Inc. v. United Cabinet Corp.
595 F.2d 164 (Third Circuit, 1979)
Oreck Corporation v. Whirlpool Corporation and Sears, Roebuck & Co.
579 F.2d 126 (Second Circuit, 1978)
Cernuto, Inc. v. United Cabinet Corp.
448 F. Supp. 1332 (W.D. Pennsylvania, 1978)
Oreck Corporation v. Whirlpool Corporation and Sears, Roebuck and Co.
563 F.2d 54 (Second Circuit, 1977)
Quality Mercury, Inc. v. Ford Motor Company
542 F.2d 466 (Eighth Circuit, 1976)
TV Signal Co. v. American Telephone & Telegraph
324 F. Supp. 725 (D. South Dakota, 1971)
Top-All Varieties, Inc. v. Hallmark Cards, Inc.
301 F. Supp. 703 (S.D. New York, 1969)
E. A. Weinel Construction Co. v. Mueller Co.
289 F. Supp. 293 (E.D. Illinois, 1968)
Walker Distributing Company v. Lucky Lager Brewing Company
323 F.2d 1 (Ninth Circuit, 1963)
White Motor Co. v. United States
372 U.S. 253 (Supreme Court, 1963)
P. H. Machinery, Inc. v. Harnischfeger Corp.
207 F. Supp. 392 (D. Minnesota, 1962)
Orbo Theatre Corporation v. Loew's
156 F. Supp. 770 (District of Columbia, 1957)
Milton v. Hudson Sales Corp.
313 P.2d 936 (California Court of Appeal, 1957)
Schwing Motor Company, Incorporated, a Maryland Corporation v. Hudson Sales Corporation, a Michigan Corporation, Hudson Motor Car Company, a Corporation of Michigan, Bankert Hudson, Inc., a Maryland Corporation, Martin A. Bankert, Frank Burnham, Claude W. Margetts, Belair Road Hudson, Inc., a Maryland Corporation v. Hudson Sales Corporation, a Michigan Corporation, Hudson Motor Car Company's a Corporation of Michigan, Bankert Hudson, Inc., a Maryland Corporation, Martin A. Bankert, Frank Burnham, Claude W. Margetts
239 F.2d 176 (Fourth Circuit, 1956)