Legal Opinion · Concurrence

Buffalo Specialty Co. v. Gougar

Colorado Court of Appeals

Decided September 15, 1914No. 3902Published

Error to Denver District Court. Hon. Harry C. Riddle, Judge.

1Concurrence

King, J.,

specially concurring:

I concur in affirming the judgment of the District Court, but place my concurrence on the ground that the -contract sued on is- void because against public policy and in undue restraint of trade.

There is no doubt that the suit is predicated on the- contract, and that only, and demands damages for alleged; violation of its conditions, whether that violation consists of acts amounting to- an infringement of a patent or in the manufacure, use and- sale of, or being interested in, articles- (possibly not-patented or patentable), the manufacture, use and sale of which…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Grand Trunk Railway Co. v. IvesSupreme Court of the United States · 1892
  2. Bishop v. PalmerMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1888
  3. Seay v. SpratlingSupreme Court of Georgia · 1909
  4. Webb Press Co. v. BierceSupreme Court of Louisiana · 1906

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

Powered by the Exa API