PICK MFG. CO. v. GENERAL MOTORS CORP.(1936)
Mr. Carl B. Rix, of Milwaukee, Wis., for petitioner.
Messrs. John M. Zane, Thomas Francis Howe, and Henry S. Rademacher, all of Chicago, Ill., for respondent.
By this suit petitioner challenged the validity under section 3 of the Clayton Act (38 Stat. 730, 731, 15 U.S.C. 14 (15 U.S.C.A. 14)) of a provision of the contracts made with dealers by selling organizations of the General Motors Corporation. The provision in the contract between the Chevrolet Motor Company and dealers is as follows: 'Dealer agrees that he will not sell, offer for sale, or use in the repair of Chevrolet motor vehicles and chassis second-hand or used parts or any part or parts not manufactured by or authorized by the Chevrolet Motor Company. It is agreed that Dealer is not granted any
* Rehearing denied 299 U.S. 622 , 57 S.Ct. 192, 81 L.Ed. --. [ Pick Mfg. Co. v. General Motors Corp. 299 U.S. 3 (1936)
exclusive selling rights in genuine new Chevrolet parts or accessories.'
There is a similar provision in contracts made by the Buick Company.
The District Court dismissed the bill of complaint for want of equity, and its decree was affirmed by the Circuit Court of Appeals. 80 F.(2d) 641. Upon the evidence adduced at the trial, the District Court found that the effect of the clause had not been in any way substantially to lessen competition or to create a monopoly in any line of commerce. This finding was sustained by the Circuit Court of Appeals. 80 F.(2d) 641, at page 644.
Under the established rule, this Court accepts the findings in which two courts concur unless clear error is shown. Stuart v. Hayden, 169 U.S. 1, 14 , 18 S.Ct. 274; Texas & Pacific Railway Company v. Railroad Commission, 232 U.S. 338 , 34 S.Ct. 438; Texas & N.O. R. Co. v. Brotherhood of Railway & S. S. Clerks, 281 U.S. 548, 558 , 50 S. Ct. 427, 429; United States v. Commercial Credit Co., 286 U.S. 63, 67 , 52 S.Ct. 467, 468; Continental Illinois Nat. Bank & Trust Co. v. Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific R. Co., 294 U.S. 648, 678 , 55 S.Ct. 595, 607. Applying this rule, the decree is affirmed.
Mr. Justice VAN DEVANTER, Mr. Justice STONE, and Mr. Justice ROBERTS took no part in the consideration and decision of this cause.