Schwing Motor Co., Inc., a Maryland Corp. v. Hudson Sales Corp., a Michigan Corp., Hudson Motor Car Co., a Corp. of Michigan, Bankert Hudson, Inc., a Maryland Corp., Martin A. Bankert, Frank Burnham, Claude W. Margetts, Belair Road Hudson, Inc., a Maryland Corp. v. Hudson Sales Corp., a Michigan Corp., Hudson Motor Car Co.'s a Corp. of Michigan, Bankert Hudson, Inc., a Maryland Corp., Martin A. Bankert, Frank Burnham, Claude W. Margetts, 239 F.2d 176 (4th Cir. 1956). · Go Syfert
Search
Schwing Motor Co., Inc., a Maryland Corp. v. Hudson Sales Corp., a Michigan Corp., Hudson Motor Car Co., a Corp. of Michigan, Bankert Hudson, Inc., a Maryland Corp., Martin A. Bankert, Frank Burnham, Claude W. Margetts, Belair Road Hudson, Inc., a Maryland Corp. v. Hudson Sales Corp., a Michigan Corp., Hudson Motor Car Co.'s a Corp. of Michigan, Bankert Hudson, Inc., a Maryland Corp., Martin A. Bankert, Frank Burnham, Claude W. Margetts, 239 F.2d 176 (4th Cir. 1956). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
96 citation events across 38 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Peerless Dental Supply Co. v. Weber Dental Manufacturing Co. (paed, 1968-04-02)
Treatment trajectory · 1956 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1956 1991 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 4 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited "see" Peerless Dental Supply Co. v. Weber Dental Manufacturing Co.
E.D. Pa. · 1968 · signal: accord · confidence high
Reversing a $190,-000 jury verdict for plaintiff, the Dis *290 trict of Columbia Circuit noted that the facts that other dealers in the same product were eliminated and that one of the competing dealers had requested the arrangement did not make it illegal; for these were the natural characteristics of the birth of an exclusive dealership, itself not illegal under the Sherman Act, id. at 421; accord, Schwing Motor Co. v. Hudson Sales Co., 138 F.Supp. 899 (D.Md.), aff’d, 239 F.2d 176 (4th Cir. 1956), cert. denied, 355 U.S. 823 , 78 S.Ct. 30 , 2 L.Ed.2d 38 (1957).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Terry's Floor Fashions, Inc. v. Burlington Industries, Inc. Lees Carpets, a Division of Burlington Industries, Inc. And Eatman's Carpets, Inc. (2×)
4th Cir. · 1985 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e.g., Schwing, Motor Co. v. Hudson Sales Corporation, 138 F.Supp. 899 (D.Md.), aff'd, 239 F.2d 176 (4 Cir.1956), cert. denied, 355 U.S. 823 , 78 S.Ct. 30 , 2 L.Ed.2d 38 (1957); Packard Motor Car Co. v. Webster Motor Car Co., 243 F.2d 418 (D.C.Cir.), cert. denied, 355 U.S. 823 , 78 S.Ct. 30 , 2 L.Ed.2d 38 (1957) (rule of reason applied where car manufacturer terminated plaintiff dealer to make another dealer its sole outlet in Baltimore area).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Cernuto, Incorporated v. United Cabinet Corporation
3rd Cir. · 1979 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also Schwing Motor Co. v. Hudson Sales Corp., 138 F.Supp. 899 (D.Md.), Aff'd, 239 F.2d 176 (4th Cir. 1956), Cert. denied, 355 U.S. 823 , 78 S.Ct. 30 , 2 L.Ed.2d 38 (1957) 23 579 F.2d 126 (2d Cir.) (En banc ), Cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 99 S.Ct. 340 , 58 L.Ed.2d 338 (1978) 24 Id. 130 25 On the other hand, if United acted in pursuit of its own policy, but that policy was itself a form of resale price maintenance, involving other parties in its enforcement, it might constitute a Per se violation of the Act under United States v. Parke, Davis & Co., 362 U.S. 29 , 80 S.Ct. 503 , 4 L.Ed.2d 505…
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Cernuto, Inc. v. United Cabinet Corp.
3rd Cir. · 1979 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also Schwing Motor Co. v. Hudson Sales Corp., 138 F.Supp. 899 (D.Md.), aff’d, 239 F.2d 176 (4th Cir. 1956), cert. denied, 355 U.S. 823 , 78 S.Ct. 30 , 2 L.Ed.2d 38 (1957). . 579 F.2d 126 (2d Cir.) (en banc), cert. denied, - U.S. -, 99 S.Ct. 340 , 58 L.Ed.2d 338 (1978). .
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
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
7221_1.
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.
Dec 17, 1956.
239 F.2d 176
Cited by 1 opinion  |  Published

239 F.2d 176

SCHWING MOTOR COMPANY, Incorporated, a Maryland Corporation, Appellant,
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, Appellees.
BELAIR ROAD HUDSON, Inc., a Maryland Corporation, Appellant,
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, Appellees.

Nos. 7220, 7221.

United States Court of Appeals Fourth Circuit.

Argued Nov. 8, 1956.
Decided Dec. 17, 1956.

Wilson K. Barnes, Baltimore, Md. (D. Sylvan Friedman, Baltimore, Md., on the brief), for appellants.

William L. Marbury and Roger A. Clapp, Baltimore, Md. (John Martin Jones, Jr., Baltimore, Md., Richard W. Larwin, Detroit, Mich., John S. Stanley, Baltimore, Md., and Hershey, Donaldson, Williams & Stanley Baltimore, Md., on the brief), for appellees.

Before PARKER, Chief Judge, and SOPER and SOBELOFF, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

1

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 contracts 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.

2

Affirmed.