Socony Mobil Oil Co. v. Tavares

Supreme Court of Rhode Island

Socony Mobil Oil Co. v. Tavares

135 A.2d 265, 86 R.I. 382, 1957 R.I. LEXIS 115

DecidedOctober 23, 1957

StatusPublished

This text of 135 A.2d 265 (Socony Mobil Oil Co. v. Tavares) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Rhode Island primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Socony Mobil Oil Co. v. Tavares, 135 A.2d 265, 86 R.I. 382, 1957 R.I. LEXIS 115 (R.I. 1957).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

This is a 'bill in equity to enjoin the respondent from selling gasoline bearing the complainant’s trade name below the prices fixed in a contract between the complainant and another dealer. The respondent has not signed a similar contract but he has knowledge of the prices fixed in the signed contract. After a hearing in the superior court a preliminary injunction was granted, and the parties then signed an agreed statement of facts and asked that court to certify to us three questions. Such request was granted.

Since the case was heard here, complainant has furnished us with a copy of a notice issued to all its gasoline dealers in this state that it has suspended its “fair trade” prices for gasoline in this state. In these circumstances we are [383]*383of the opinion that between these parties the questions certified have become moot and, such .being the case, we decline to answer them.

Francis I. McCanna, Tillinghast, Collins & Tanner, Harold E. Staples, Edwin H. Hastings, Herman J. Schmidt, John J. Scott and H. Francis Shattuck, Jr., of New York Bar, H. C. Gilbert, of Massachusetts Bar, for complainant. Leo Patrick McGowan, John P. Bourcier, for respondent.

The papers in the case are ordered sent back to the superior court.

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

Per Curiam.

This is a 'bill in equity to enjoin the respondent from selling gasoline bearing the complainant’s trade name below the prices fixed in a contract between the complainant and another dealer. The respondent has not signed a similar contract but he has knowledge of the prices fixed in the signed contract. After a hearing in the superior court a preliminary injunction was granted, and the parties then signed an agreed statement of facts and asked that court to certify to us three questions. Such request was granted.

Since the case was heard here, complainant has furnished us with a copy of a notice issued to all its gasoline dealers in this state that it has suspended its “fair trade” prices for gasoline in this state. In these circumstances we are [383]*383of the opinion that between these parties the questions certified have become moot and, such .being the case, we decline to answer them.

Francis I. McCanna, Tillinghast, Collins & Tanner, Harold E. Staples, Edwin H. Hastings, Herman J. Schmidt, John J. Scott and H. Francis Shattuck, Jr., of New York Bar, H. C. Gilbert, of Massachusetts Bar, for complainant. Leo Patrick McGowan, John P. Bourcier, for respondent.

The papers in the case are ordered sent back to the superior court.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

135 A.2d 265, 86 R.I. 382, 1957 R.I. LEXIS 115, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/socony-mobil-oil-co-v-tavares-ri-1957.