Case Name: RACKLIFFE BROS. COMPANY vs. MAYFLOWER SALES COMPANY
Court: Connecticut Superior Court
Jurisdiction: Connecticut
Decision Date: 1936-03-17
Citations: 3 Conn. Supp. 341
Docket Number: File #52236
Parties: RACKLIFFE BROS. COMPANY vs. MAYFLOWER SALES COMPANY
Judges: 
Reporter: Connecticut Supplement
Volume: 3
Pages: 341–342

Head Matter:
RACKLIFFE BROS. COMPANY vs. MAYFLOWER SALES COMPANY
Superior Court Hartford County
File #52236
Present: Hon. NEWELL JENNINGS, Judge.
A. E. Mag, G. H. Hamlin, Attorneys for the Plaintiff.
Buckley, Creedon 6? Danaher, Gross, Hyde Williams, Attorneys for the Defendant.
MEMORANDUM FILED MARCH 17, 1936.

Opinion:
JENNINGS, J.
The brief of the defendant indicates that its chief reliance is on grounds of demurrer 4 to 11 inclusive. These invoke the protection of the Sherman and Clayton Acts which are cognisable only in the Federal courts. Pennsylvania-Dixie Cement Corp. vs. Lines Co., 119 Conn. 603, 607.
While the question in that case was on a demurrer to a cross'complaint setting up a cause of action under those sta tutes, the same principle applies here. Furthermore, the terms of the contract complained of do not appear to me so oppressive as to justify interference. As to time, it could be can-celled by either party; as to space, it was limited to this State; as to character, the defendant was not forbidden to sell outside its territory but was obligated to pay a certain penalty for doing so. The definition of the arrangement as an "exclusive franchise" by the plaintiff seems to me accurate.
The case of Bridgeport vs. Aetna Indemnity Company, 91 Conn. 197, 204, disposes of the remaining grounds of demurrer to the effect that the plaintiff is entitled to relief only for toss actually sustained.
The demurrer is overruled.