Goddard v. American Queen Inc.
New York Supreme Court
This is an action brought to compel the specific performance of a contract entered into in Inly, 1898, between the plaintiffs and the defendant “ The American Queen Incorporated,” hy the terms •of which the latter agreed to insert and publish, in its paper, called “ The American Queen ”, for the period of eighteen months, an advertisement of “ Eeder’s Brush Skirt Protector ”, for which plaintiffs are the agents in the United States.
Read the full summary
This is an action brought to compel the specific performance of a contract entered into in Inly, 1898, between the plaintiffs and the defendant “ The American Queen Incorporated,” hy the terms •of which the latter agreed to insert and publish, in its paper, called “ The American Queen ”, for the period of eighteen months, an advertisement of “ Eeder’s Brush Skirt Protector ”, for which plaintiffs are the agents in the United States. Plaintiffs’ demand for specific performance is based upon the following clause of said contract, “ We hereby agree not to publish during that time any…
1Opinion of the CourtWerner, J.
The dismissal of the complaint as to the defendant The Stewart Howe & May Company, entitles that defendant to costs. No attempt was made upon the trial to prove the allegations of the complaint charging said defendant with knowledge of, and participation in, the alleged wrongful acts of the other defendant. The mere disclaimer of counsel for the plaintiffs of any intention to ask for a personal judgment against the defendant The Stewart. Howe & May Company, was not sufficient to require or justify the withdrawal of counsel for said defendant from further active participation in the case.
As to…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Wakeman v. Wheeler & Wilson Manufacturing Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1886
- Diamond Match Co. v. . RoeberNew York Court of Appeals · 1887
- Leslie v. . LorillardNew York Court of Appeals · 1888
- Matthews v. Associated PressNew York Court of Appeals · 1893
- Standard Fashion Co. v. Siegel-Cooper Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1898
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- Kinsman v. Utah Gas & Coke Co.Utah Supreme Court · 1918
- Walker v. MACKEYOregon Supreme Court · 1952
- Walker v. MACKEYOregon Supreme Court · 1952