Tri-State Sales Co. v. National Automatic MacH. Co.

Court of Appeals of Texas

Tri-State Sales Co. v. National Automatic MacH. Co.

38 S.W.2d 838, 1931 Tex. App. LEXIS 453

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas

DecidedApril 16, 1931

DocketNo. 3966.

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 38 S.W.2d 838 (Tri-State Sales Co. v. National Automatic MacH. Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Tri-State Sales Co. v. National Automatic MacH. Co., 38 S.W.2d 838, 1931 Tex. App. LEXIS 453 (Tex. Ct. App. 1931).

Pincite

Opinion

WILLSON, C. J. (after stating the case as above).

Appellant insists it appeared the contract sued upon was in contravention of the antitrust laws of the state (title 126, R. S. 1925, as amended [Vernon’s Ann. Civ. St. arts. 7426-74471), and that the trial court therefore erred when he held to the contrary and rendered the judgment complained of. In support of its contention, appellant cited National Automatic Machine Co. v. Smith (Tex. Civ. App.) 32 S.W.(2d) 678, where a contract containing stipulations identically the same as those, in the contract here in question (set out in the statement above) was held to be not enforceable because in violation of said laws. The reasons for the holding in that case are stated in the opinion of the court affirming a judgment dismissing the suit brought by the appellant there (appellee in the instant suit). We think the conclusion reached by the court in that case was correct, and that the holding should be followed here. Therefore appellant’s contention is sustained, and the judgment in question here will be reversed, and the cause "will be remanded to the court below, with instructions to dismiss the action.

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

WILLSON, C. J. (after stating the case as above).

Appellant insists it appeared the contract sued upon was in contravention of the antitrust laws of the state (title 126, R. S. 1925, as amended [Vernon’s Ann. Civ. St. arts. 7426-74471), and that the trial court therefore erred when he held to the contrary and rendered the judgment complained of. In support of its contention, appellant cited National Automatic Machine Co. v. Smith (Tex. Civ. App.) 32 S.W.(2d) 678, where a contract containing stipulations identically the same as those, in the contract here in question (set out in the statement above) was held to be not enforceable because in violation of said laws. The reasons for the holding in that case are stated in the opinion of the court affirming a judgment dismissing the suit brought by the appellant there (appellee in the instant suit). We think the conclusion reached by the court in that case was correct, and that the holding should be followed here. Therefore appellant’s contention is sustained, and the judgment in question here will be reversed, and the cause "will be remanded to the court below, with instructions to dismiss the action.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

38 S.W.2d 838, 1931 Tex. App. LEXIS 453, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tri-state-sales-co-v-national-automatic-mach-co-texapp-1931.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack