Hitchcock v. Anthony
Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
Error to the Circuit Court of the United States for the Western District of Michigan. This Is an action for a breach of contract between William D. Hitchcock,, plaintiff in error, and Thomas O. Anthony, defendant in error, whereby said Hitchcock agreed not to engage in certain business for a period of seven years-from February 24, 1892. This contract was in writing, and was as follows: “This agreement, made and entered into this 24th day of February, A. D. 1892,, by and…
Read the full summary
Error to the Circuit Court of the United States for the Western District of Michigan. This Is an action for a breach of contract between William D. Hitchcock,, plaintiff in error, and Thomas O. Anthony, defendant in error, whereby said Hitchcock agreed not to engage in certain business for a period of seven years-from February 24, 1892. This contract was in writing, and was as follows: “This agreement, made and entered into this 24th day of February, A. D. 1892,, by and between Thomas C. Anthony, of 8-ault Ste. Marie, Mich., -and W. IX Hitchcock, of Chicago, 111.: The party of the first part,…
1Opinion of the CourtLurton, Circuit Judge
The conveyance of this dock to Hitchcock, and his agreement not to engage in a business which should compete with that carried on by Anthony upon another and adjacent dock, bear the same date. This fact, in connection with the manifest purposes of the contract as indicated by its whole tenor, affords prima facie evidence of the simultaneous execution of the two instruments, and that the consideration for the contract was the sale and conveyance of the dock and realty to which it was appurtenant. They really constitute but one transaction, and should be read together.
It has been argued that…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- United States v. BehanSupreme Court of the United States · 1884
- Griffin v. . ColverNew York Court of Appeals · 1858
- Howard v. Stillwell & Bierce Manufacturing Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1891
- Gibbs v. Consolidated Gas Co. of BaltimoreSupreme Court of the United States · 1889
- Oregon Steam Navigation Co. v. WinsorSupreme Court of the United States · 1874
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by20 opinions
- State of California Ex Rel. Van De Kamp v. TexacoCalifornia Supreme Court · 1988
- John D. Park & Sons Co. v. HartmanCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1907
- Zhou Hua Zhu v. U.S. Attorney GeneralCourt of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 2013
- Lillard v. Kentucky Distilleries & Warehouse Co.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1904
- My Laundry Co. v. SchmelingWisconsin Supreme Court · 1906
15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.