Legal Opinion

Portland Co. v. Hall

New York Supreme Court

Decided December 15, 1904PublishedCited by 1 opinion

Action by the Portland Company against one Hall. On demurrer to counterclaim.

1Opinion of the CourtGreenbaum, J.

The demurrer to the alleged counterclaim set forth in paragraphs “eleventh” to “seventeenth” (both inclusive) of the answer of the defendant, Charles' Ward Hall, seems to me to be well founded. The defendant, in his counterclaim, alleges that plaintiff stipulated in its contract for the installation of the elevators which form the subject-matter of the controversy between the parties to defend at its own costs and expenses all suits that might be instituted against the defendants, or either of them, for an infringement of any patent or patents by reason of the use of any apparatus, mechanism,…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Baxter v. . McDonnellNew York Court of Appeals · 1897
  2. People v. . BoothNew York Court of Appeals · 1865
  3. Charles Roome Parmele Co. v. HaasNew York Court of Appeals · 1902
  4. Welsbach Co. v. Norwich Gas & Electric Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1904
  5. Williams v. WilliamsNew York Supreme Court · 1890

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. F. J. Emmerich Co. v. W. & J. SloaneAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1905

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API