1. A form of contract by which dealers in automobiles agree with
the manufacturers that they will not sell, offer for sale, or use
in the repair of the vehicles, second hand or used parts or parts
not manufactured or authorized by the manufacturer, is not
violative of the Clayton Act if its effect has not been in any way
substantially to lessen competition or to create a monopoly in any
line of commerce. P.
299 U. S. 4.
2. Findings concurred in by the District Court and Circuit Court
of Appeals are accepted by this Court unless clear error is shown.
P.
299 U. S. 4.
80 F.2d 641 affirmed.
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
Page 299 U. S. 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. 80 F.2d 641 at 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,
169 U. S. 14;
Texas & Pacific Ry. Co. v. Railroad Commission,
232 U. S. 338;
Texas & N.O. R. Co. v. Railway Clerks, 281 U.
S. 548,
281 U. S. 558;
United States v. Commercial Credit Co., 286 U. S.
63,
286 U. S. 67;
Continental Bank v. Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Ry.
Co., 294 U. S. 648,
294 U. S. 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.