Prouty v. Union Hardware Co.
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Contract to recover $500, as liquidated royalty, under a written contract dated March 1* 1898. Trial in the Superior Court, before Hardy, J., who excluded from evidence certain letters written before the execution of the contract and all other testimony offered by either side for the purpose of removing or explaining any supposed ambiguities in the contract, found that, if the excluded evidence were admissible, it confirmed the construction of the contract contended for by…
Read the full summary
Contract to recover $500, as liquidated royalty, under a written contract dated March 1* 1898. Trial in the Superior Court, before Hardy, J., who excluded from evidence certain letters written before the execution of the contract and all other testimony offered by either side for the purpose of removing or explaining any supposed ambiguities in the contract, found that, if the excluded evidence were admissible, it confirmed the construction of the contract contended for by the defendant and found for the defendant. The judge reported the case for the determination of this court. If the…
1Opinion of the CourtHolmes, C. J.
This is an action to recover the sum of $500 alleged to be due under a written contract between the parties. The sum is due if the plaintiffs’ construction of the contract is correct, but the judge before whom the ease was tried did not adopt that construction, and found for the defendant.
The plaintiffs were holders of a patent relating to skates, and by the contract in question gave-the defendant an exclusive license to manufacture and sell skates under the patent for the term of the patent except as thereinafter provided. The defendant agreed, among other things, to pay the plaintiffs $500,…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Joy v. St. LouisSupreme Court of the United States · 1891
- Stoops v. SmithMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1868
- Wing v. . Ansonia Clock Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1886
- Preston v. SmithIllinois Supreme Court · 1895
3Cited by2 opinions
- Commonwealth v. KelleyMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1900
- Gambrell v. McKeanArizona Supreme Court · 1925