Supreme Court of the United States, 1936

Pick Manufacturing Co. v. General Motors Corp.

Supreme Court of the United States · Decided October 26, 1936 · Van Devanter, Stone, Roberts

299 U.S. 3; 57 S. Ct. 1; 81 L. Ed. 4; 1936 U.S. LEXIS 2 (United States Reports)

Counsel

Mr. Carl B. -Rix for petitioner., Mr. John M. Zane, with whom Messrs. Franklin D. Trueblood, Thomas Francis Howe, and Henry S. Rademacher were on the brief, for respondents.

Cases that cite this one

42 later published cases cite this decision. The 24 that cite it most often are listed here.

Metrix Warehouse, Inc. v. Daimler-Benz Aktiengesellschaft (4th Cir. 1987)
United States v. Standard Oil Co. (United States District Court for the Southern District of California 1948)
Tripoli Company, Inc. v. Wella Corporation (3d Cir. 1970)
Susser v. Carvel Corporation (District Court, S.D. New York 1962)
Nelson Radio & Supply Co., Inc. v. Motorola, Inc (5th Cir. 1952)
Morton Salt Co. v. Federal Trade Commission (7th Cir. 1947)
Standard Oil Co. of California v. United States (Supreme Court of the United States 1949)
The Mozart Company, a Corporation v. Mercedes-Benz of North America, Inc., a Corporation (9th Cir. 1987)
Mozart Co. v. Mercedes-Benz of North America, Inc. (United States District Court for the Northern District of California 1984)
White & White, Inc. v. American Hospital Supply Corp. (District Court, W.D. Michigan 1982)
United States v. Mercedes-Benz of North America, Inc. (United States District Court for the Northern District of California 1981)
General Business Services, Inc. v. Rouse (District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania 1980)
Richardson v. Chrysler Motors Corporation (District Court, S.D. Texas 1966)
Miller Motors, Inc. v. Ford Motor Co. (District Court, M.D. North Carolina 1957)
G. D. Searle & Co. v. Institutional Drug Distributors, Inc. (United States District Court for the Southern District of California 1955)
Dictograph Products, Inc. v. Federal Trade Commission (2d Cir. 1954)
Campbell v. Automatic Die & Products Co. (Ohio 1954)
Chamberlin v. Clark Bros. (United States District Court for the Southern District of California 1951)
Knight v. Hamilton (Court of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976) 1950)
Knight v. Hamilton (Ky. Ct. App. 1950)
United States v. Maryland & Virginia Milk Producers Ass'n, Inc. (D.C. Cir. 1949)
United States v. American Can Co. (United States District Court for the Northern District of California 1949)
United States v. International Salt Co. (District Court, S.D. New York 1946)
Judson L. Thomson Mfg. Co. v. Federal Trade Commission (1st Cir. 1945)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion

Per Curiam.

By this suit petitioner challenged the validity under § 3 of the Clayton Act (38 Stat. 730, 731, 15 U. S. C. 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 *4 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. Id., p. 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; Texas & Pacific Ry. Co. v. Railroad Commission, 232 U. S. 338; Texas & N. O. R. Co. v. Railway Clerks, 281 U. S. 548, 558; United States v. Commercial Credit Co., 286 U. S. 63, 67; Continental Bank v. Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Ry. Co., 294 U. S. 648, 678. 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.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.