The Birmingham age-herald., 1916-05-07
TIRE COMPANIES WIN
 SUIT BROUGHT BY A. CONSUMERS LEAGUE.
Court Holds That Tire Man ufacturers Need Sell Only to Dealers in the
 Tire Trade

On March S1, 1916. there ended in the United States district court, in Cleve- land, G., trial which has lasted for three weeks, and is of vital interest to the dealers throughout the country. The suit was one brought by consum-
 CTS league known as the Automobile Co., operative Association of America, which was organized in New York in 1908, and went out of business in 1911. The suit was against the B. F. Goodrich company, the Diamond Rubber company, the Firestone Tire and Rubber company the Republic Rubber company and the U. s. Tire com pany.
 The consumers league-the plaintiff l'complained that these companies had re- fused to sell tires to it at dealers prices; that such refusal was the result of a combined action or conspiracy on the part of these companies, and that the result of such conspiracy had been to cause this consumers league to fail in business. The suit was brought for $45000O damages un- der the sherman antitrust laws. At the conclusion of the plaintiffs open ing proofs, the F'irtstone Rubber company and the U. S. Tire company were, by the direction of the court, dropped out of the case. laiAi&iki The fight was continued by the Good rich, Diamond and Republic companies. It appeared from the evidence there after taken--consisting of testimony of a number Of prominent dealers and of officers and branch managers of the tire companies-that the Goodrich company had always and consistently refused to sell to clubs, consumers leagues and kin dred organizations at dealers prices, rec ognizng that to do so would be unfair to, and would undermine the business of the legitimate dealers.
 Though the court, at the conclusion of the evidence. decided-and subsequently, so charged the jury-that no damages were proven or could be recovered even | if the defendants were guilty under the Sherman law, the defendants were unwill- ing to stop, but desired to have the pro- priety of their acts passed upon. So the case was argued before the jury which has now brought in a verdict com pletely in favor of the defendants The court, in it's charge to the jury pointed out that the reason stated by the defendants for not selling to the plain tiff at dealers prices was that they
 were forced to decide between two alter
 natives-to deal with the cooperative
 leagues, such as the plaintiff was as-
 sumed to be. and lose the business of the
 regular dealers, or to say we will not
 deal with the cooperative leagues and we
 will keep the favor of the support of the
 regular dealers
 Further, thee ourt said '.If the plain
 tiff was not entitled to the consideration
 accorded to, and received by regular re-
 tail dealers in the ordinary course of
 trade, then to refuse to deal with them
 as regular retail dealers was no restraint
 of trade.''
 Again the court said that the jury would nave to ask itself this question, namely:
 Was there any necessity for MT. Ray
 mond, representing the Goodrich com
 pany, with it's standing in the trade. to
 appeal to other tire makers to join with
 II Iii such an agreement against this cor poration? Was there any benefit to ac-
 erue to the Goodrich company to do this
 sort of thing?" And the jury decidedo. in
 favor of the defendants.
 The Goodrich company will continue
 with it's uniform and long established pol
 icy which has been and is and will be to
 protect its dealers, and refuse to sell
 at dealers prices to consumers under
 whatever form of association they may
 be banded together