(Syllabus.)
1. MONOPOLIES — Retailer's contract limiting him to exclusive territory for resale of merchandise held not in violation of antitrust laws.
A retailer's contract with a wholesaler or distributor of merchandise limiting the former to a definite and exclusive territory for the resale of such merchandise does not restrain trade or competition in violation of the federal or state antitrust laws (15 U.S.C.A. § 1; sec. 12790, O. S. 1931, et seq., 79 Okla. Stat. Ann. § 1, et seq., sec. 9492, O. S. 1931, 15 Okla. Stat. Ann. § 217). Thomas v. Belcher, 184 Okla. 410, 87 P.2d 1084.
2. SAME — Evidence held not to show contract of sale between wholesaler and retailer was void because of retail price fixing.
Record examined; held, evidence insufficient to support the charge that the contract of sale between a wholesaler and retailer was void under the state and federal antitrust laws by reason of retail price fixing by the wholesaler. Thomas v. Belcher, 184 Okla. 410, 87 P.2d 1084.
3. GUARANTY — Evidence held not to show contract induced by false representations of obligee's agents.
The charge in the instant case that the defendant guarantors were induced to sign the contract of guaranty by false representations of the obligee's agents is not sustained by the evidence. Thomas v. Belcher, 184 Okla. 410, 87 P.2d 1084.
4. PARTNERSHIP — Partnership name containing surnames of all partners not "fictitious."
A partnership name or title containing the surnames of all the partners is not fictitious within the contemplation of section 11662, O. S. 1931, 54 Okla. Stat. Ann. § 81. Thomas v. Belcher, 184 Okla. 410, 87 P.2d 1084.
PER CURIAM.
This appeal involves the same questions of law and fact which were involved and decided in Thomas v. Belcher, 184 Okla. 410, 87 P.2d 1084. The parties by stipulation have filed the briefs which were used in said cause as the briefs in the case at bar. What we have heretofore said in the above case is controlling upon every issue involved here. The judgment of the trial court in favor of defendants B.E Anderson, Oscar Swain, A.T. Sanders, and R.F. Eastep is unsupported by any competent evidence shown in the record and is contrary to law as announced in the above-cited decision of this court. It is therefore unnecessary to repeat what we have heretofore said or to elaborate upon the matter further.
The judgment as to the above-named defendants is accordingly reversed, with directions to the trial court to enter judgment in favor of the plaintiff and against said defendants and each of them.
BAYLESS, C. J., WELCH, V. C. J., and RILEY, HURST, and DANNER, JJ., concur.