renderedthe contractvoid aa violativeof the anti-trustlaws of Tex.8. * * *."
&ee Also Rogers v. WestinghouseElectricSupp4 Co., (Dallas Court of CivilApperki 1938) 116 S.W. (2d) 886, wherein the court declared,at page 80th
"AEJEUIU~IIS that the icing unit, part of the equip- ment of the refrigerator, wee P patentedarticleand owned eitherby the WestinghouseElectricand Nl'g.Co., or the WestinghouseXleotrioSupply Co., defendant herein,the dealer'scontractin questioncontemplated en absolutesale of the articleby the Manufacturing Companyto the supply Company,and by the Supp4 Company (deftident.)to plaintiff,showingoonclusive4 that, PB the owner of the patentedarticlepartddwith title, the doctrineinvoked161not rppliorble,hence the attempt to prescriberestriction8e&ito territory,etc., is clear4 withiI.thecond3mn.tionof the .nti-trustlaws of the state. This doctrinewoe announcedin Coca Cola v. State, Tex. Civ. App., 225 S.W. 791; NationalAuto- matic Mach. Co. v. Smith, 32 S.W. 678."
Under the foregoingauthorities,we believethe conclusion is inescapablethat the attachedcontractis in violationof the Texas Anti-trustLaws.
very truly your3,
AlTOBNEYGENERALOFTFXAS
Byr Walter R. goch /e Welter R. Koch Aasietuit hwtssm EIOCIOSURR APPROVED MAR 28, 1941 APPROVED Gerald C. Mann /a Opinion A'TTOBNEYGENEFIALOF TEXAS Committee By: BWB Ch.bIJl.l2