From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Cummings-Landau Laundry Machinery Co. v. Koplin

Appellate Court of Illinois, First District
Oct 26, 1942
316 Ill. App. 306 (Ill. App. Ct. 1942)

Opinion

Gen. No. 42,384. (Abstract of Decision.)

Opinion filed October 26, 1942 Supplemental opinion filed and rehearing denied November 14, 1942

INJUNCTIONS, § 43contracts in restraint of trade or commerce. Where plaintiff was the assignee of a contract which gave it the exclusive right to sell defendant's laundry equipment and machinery in a designated territory, and he secured a temporary injunction against defendant and others violating the agreement by selling laundry equipment and machinery in plaintiff's territory, the contract fixed the resale price contrary to the Sherman Anti-Trust Act and was unenforceable; and an order overruling motion to dissolve temporary injunction was reversed.

See Callaghan's Illinois Digest, same topic and section number.

Appeal from interlocutory order of Superior Court of Cook county; Hon. JOHN C. LEWE, presiding.

Order reversed. Heard in first divisions, first district, this court at October term, 1942.

Levinson, Becker, Peebles Swiren, for certain appellant;

Don M. Peebles, Herbert Portes and Theodore R. Sherwin, of counsel;

Gurman Eberle, for appellee;

Samuel P. Gurman, Marvin S. Fenchel, Floyd E. Thompson and Herldon H. Bowen, of counsel.


"Not to be published in full." Opinion filed October 26, 1942; supplemental opinion filed and rehearing denied November 14, 1942.


Summaries of

Cummings-Landau Laundry Machinery Co. v. Koplin

Appellate Court of Illinois, First District
Oct 26, 1942
316 Ill. App. 306 (Ill. App. Ct. 1942)
Case details for

Cummings-Landau Laundry Machinery Co. v. Koplin

Case Details

Full title:Cummings-Landau Laundry Machinery Company, Appellee, v. Harry Koplin et…

Court:Appellate Court of Illinois, First District

Date published: Oct 26, 1942

Citations

316 Ill. App. 306 (Ill. App. Ct. 1942)
44 N.E.2d 613

Citing Cases

The Vendo Co. v. Stoner

". . . defendant could not pay and plaintiff could not receive or accept the commissions or price discounts…

Cummings-Landau Co. v. Koplin

We are not convinced that this distinction, alone, is decisive here. The Appellate Court held that when the…