◆ SpookStack

\e denerserent octal cola ch Le. SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES. No, 12.—Octoper Term, 1936, Petitioner, On Writ of Certiorari to v3. the United States Cir- General Motors Corporation, Chevrolet{) cuit Court of Appeals Motor Company, and Buick Motor| for the Seventh Cireuit. Company. [October 26, 1936.} Per Curiam. By this suit petitioner challenged the validity under Section 3 of the Clayton Act (38 Stat. 730, 731, 15 U. 8. C. 14) of a provi- sion 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 as oes nant ne nantes wat omanufaaturead hy ar anthaesica part if.) Ue any pain Wl pad. be Pk Maniac rurea uy we authorized b oy the Chevrolet Motor Company. [ft is agreed that Dealer is not granted any 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 Cireuit Court of Appeals. 80 F, (2d) 641. Upon the evidence adduced at the trial the Dis- trict Court found that the effect of the clause had not been in any way substantially to lessen competition or to rreate a monopaly in. any line of commerce. This finding was sustained by the Cireuit 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. Stuaré v. Hayden, 169 U. 8. 1, 14; Texas & Pacific Railway Company v. Railroad Commission, 232 U.S. 338; Texas € N. O. RB. Co. v. Rail- oethy COE