Legal Opinion

National Automatic MacH. Co. v. Smith

Court of Appeals of Texas

Decided October 15, 1930No. 7505PublishedCited by 9 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtBlair, J.

Appellant, as vendor, sued appellee, as purchaser, for $660.68, as the balance due on certain written contract of sale of boxing amusement machines, known as “K. O. Fighters,” which contract was attached as a part of the petition. The trial court sustained appellee’s special exception to the petition, on the ground that the contract was in violation of the anti-trust laws of Texas, and dismissed the action upon appellant’s refusal to amend; hence this appeal.

The material portions of the contract read as follows:

‘Whereas vendor manufactures and sells a coin operated boxing amusement device…

2Cases cited19 opinions

  1. Fuqua, Hinkle & Davis v. Pabst Brewing Co.Texas Supreme Court · 1897
  2. W. T. Rawleigh Co. v. LandTexas Supreme Court · 1926
  3. Albertype Co. v. Gust Feist Co.Texas Supreme Court · 1908
  4. Caddell v. J. R. Watkins Medical Co.Court of Appeals of Texas · 1921
  5. Segal v. McCall CompanyTexas Supreme Court · 1916

14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by9 opinions

  1. Patrizi v. McAninchTexas Supreme Court · 1954
  2. Oliver v. Rogers, Texas Court of Appeals, 1st District (Houston)1998
  3. Cardwell Investment Co., Inc., a Corporation v. United Supply & Manufacturing Co., a CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1959
  4. Rogers v. Westinghouse Electric Supply Co.Court of Appeals of Texas · 1938
  5. State v. Ford Motor Co.Court of Appeals of Texas · 1943

4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API