The Pep Boys, Manny, Moe & Jack of California v. Pyroil Sales Company/Opinion of the Court

by George Sutherland

United States Supreme Court

299 U.S. 198

The Pep Boys, Manny, Moe & Jack of California  v.  Pyroil Sales Company

 Argued: Nov. 12, 1936. --- Decided: Dec 7, 1936

These appeals involve the question of the constitutionality of sections 1 and 1 1/2 of the California Fair Trade Act, as amended, Cal.St.1931, p. 583, Cal.St.1933, p. 793, Deering's Gen.Laws of California, 1931, vol. 3, and Supp.1933, Act 8782, printed in the margin. It will be seen upon comparison that they are substantially identical with sections 1 and 2 of the Illinois act (Smith-Hurd Ill.Stats. c. 121 1/2, §§ 188, 189), which we have just sustained in Old Dearborn Distributing Company v. Seagram-Distillers Corporation, 299 U.S. 183, 57 S.Ct. 139, 81 L.Ed. 109.

In the present cases suits were brought by appellees against appellants to enjoin the latter from alleged violations of section 1 1/2. The sufficiency of the complaints was challenged by demurrer, the facts alleged being, therefore, admitted. The trial courts, upon these facts, held the section invalid, and appeals were taken to the state supreme court. In that court, No. 79 was first heard; the view of the trial courts was rejected; and the section held to be constitutionally valid. 5 Cal.(2d) 446, 55 P.(2d) 177. Upon the authority of that decision, No. 55 was also reversed. 5 Cal.(2d) 784, 55 P.(2d) 194, 1186. The decrees of the trial courts entered on the orders sustaining demurrers without leave to amend were reversed; and respondents (appellants here) having elected to stand on their demurrers, the trial courts were ordered to enter judgment in favor of appellants (appellees here), as prayed for in their complaints.

The questions presented and the facts involved are substantially the same as those which were present in the two suits involved in the Old Dearborn Distributing Company Case; and upon that authority, the decrees entered in the court below are affirmed.

Mr. Justice STONE took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.

Notes