![handle is hein.journals/txjbus1 and id is 1 raw text is:
BULLET IN OF THE SECTION ON CORPORATION, BANKING & BUSINESS LAW
Volume 1 Number 1
MARCH, 1962
A NOTE ABOUT THE BULLETIN
This first issue initiates a program for bi-monthly publication of the Bulletin, by which we hope
to place in the hands of every member of this Section a timely and informative selection of current
matters in the field of corporation, banking and business law.
We envision for the Bulletin a flexible format and subject matter for future issues. We now plan
the inclusion in one or more issues of recent-case digests; attorney general opinions and administrative
rulings; information as to pending and enacted legislation; mention of publications and institutes likely
to be of interest to Section members; and perhaps an issue from time to time largely devoted to a
single question of current significance.
Your criticisms of the Bulletin and your suggestions regarding prospective issues are welcomed.
This issue is being mailed to all members of the State Bar. Subsequent issues will be mailed only
to Section members. For lawyers who are not now members but who would like to receive the Bulletin
and participate in the affairs of the Section, a membership application will be found on page 3.
A note of thanks: We greatly appreciate the reproduction of the Bulletin by Warlick Law, Inc.,
of Dallas, free of charge as a public service to the legal profession.
RECENT DECISIONS
Anti-Trust Laws-Exclusive Dealer Agreements. The Supreme Court of Texas has adhered
to its early (1895) ruling that a contract for an exclusive dealership in an assigned territory is void
under the Texas anti-trust laws, Arts. 7426, 7428, 7437, R.C.S. A manufacturer-plaintiff was denied
recovery on its sworn account arising under such an agreement, surprisingly often encountered
in Texas.
The Court, apparently because these particular contracts are conclusively illegal as a matter of
stare decisis, held no inquiry might be made concerning whether competition had in fact been restricted
under the agreement.
Climatic Air Distributors v. Climatic Air Sales, Inc., 345 S.W.2d 702.
(Related cases are collected in 24 Texas Bar Journal 939.)
Bankruptcy-Preferences-Reasonable Cause to Believe Insolvent. A familiar problem for
the experienced creditor is the federal trustee's assault on his receipt of payment within four months
before bankruptcy, on the ground that at the time of payment he had reasonable cause to believe
that the debtor is insolvent. Bankruptcy Act § 60, 11 U.S.C. § 96. Since voidability of a preference
depends on reasonable cause rather than actual belief, the Act can hold traps for the unwary, how-
ever alert to the problem.
A Shreveport bank was recently held by the Fifth Circuit to have received a voidable preference,
the Court reversing findings of fact by the District Court principally on evidence that the bank knew
that the bankrupt corporation was insubstantial, and was so integrally part of its sole owner's operation
that his financial disaster would strongly indicate the depletion of [the bankrupt's] assets.](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.journals/txjbus1&div=1&collection=&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)
What Is HeinOnline?
Contact us for annual subscription options:
Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?
profiles profiles most
Contact us for annual subscription options:
Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?
profiles profiles most
Contact us for annual subscription options:
Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?
profiles profiles most