In re Liquimatic Systems, Inc.
District Court, S.D. California
1Opinion of the Court
BYRNE, District Judge.
Prior to March 1956, Earl Spangler, as a sole proprietor, was engaged in the business of manufacturing devices for metering and storing liquid food products. These devices were designed by Spangler and were based upon, and incorporated, patents which he owned.
In March 1956, Spangler entered into a partnership agreement with Heber C. Erickson and Harry E. Erickson, the claimants and petitioners herein. Under this agreement, Spangler kept 55% of the business, putting all of the business’ assets and the patents into the partnership. The Ericksons became limited partners,…
2Cases cited18 opinions
- Stellwagen v. ClumSupreme Court of the United States · 1918
- Adams v. BellCalifornia Supreme Court · 1936
- Solorza v. Park Water Co.California Court of Appeal · 1948
- Allee v. ShayCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1928
- Benson v. HarrimanCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1921
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- T W M Homes, Inc. v. Atherwood Realty & Investment Co.California Court of Appeal · 1963
- United States v. SchroederDistrict Court, S.D. Iowa · 1964
- In re: RUDOLPH MEDINA A.K.A. Rudy MedinaUnited States Bankruptcy Appellate Panel for the Ninth Circuit · 2020