Genese v. H. K. Mulford Co.
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 338, Jan. T., 1910, by defendant, from decree of C. P., No. 3, Phila. Co., March T., 1907, No. 5,654, for an account in case of David Genese v. H. K. Mulford Company. Bill for an accounting under a written contract for use of a patent. Hearing before Theodore F. Jenkins, referee, on bill, answer and proofs. The facts appear in the opinion of the Supreme Court.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 338, Jan. T., 1910, by defendant, from decree of C. P., No. 3, Phila. Co., March T., 1907, No. 5,654, for an account in case of David Genese v. H. K. Mulford Company. Bill for an accounting under a written contract for use of a patent. Hearing before Theodore F. Jenkins, referee, on bill, answer and proofs. The facts appear in the opinion of the Supreme Court. McMichael, P. J., dismissed defendant’s exceptions to the referee’s findings and decreed that the defendant pay to the plaintiff the sum of $2,500.80. Defendant appealed. Errors assigned were in dismissing defendant’s…
1Opinion of the Court
Per Curiam,
The bill was for an accounting for royalties claimed under an agreement for the manufacture, by the defendant, of suppositories, with metallic coverings, under a patent owned by the plaintiff. In the answer it was averred that prior to the making of the agreement, the plaintiff had represented that he had not granted the right to use his patented process to anyone, and that he could give the defendant the exclusive right to use the same, that the contract was entered into because of this assurance; that these representations were untrue, because the plaintiff had previously sold to…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Edison General Electric Co. v. Thackara Manufacturing Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1895
- Jarecki v. HaysSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1894