Legal Opinion
Horvath v. McCord Radiator & Mfg. Co.
Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
Decided November 4, 1929No. 5341PublishedCited by 9 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtDenison, Circuit Judge
(after stating
the facts as above). The decree below found that the minds of the parties had met with sufficient definiteness to make an enforceable obligation and, in accordance with the prayer of the defendant’s answer in the nature of a cross-bill, directed the plaintiff to execute a formal contract of exclusive license. Recognizing an element of vagueness in the provision for a 3 per cent, royalty upon the gross sales, the decree further specified the method of computation in certain instances, and directed a reference to a master to settle the terms if the parties could not agree in some…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Jenkins & Reynolds Co. v. Alpena Portland Cement Co.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1906
- Bijur Motor Lighting Co. v. Eclipse Mach. Co.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1917
- Keystone Type Foundry v. Fastpress Co.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1921
- Elkhorn-Hazard Coal Co. v. Kentucky River Coal CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1927
- General Motors Corp. v. AbellCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1923
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by9 opinions
- Horvath v. McCord Radiator & Mfg. Co.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1938
- City Stores Company v. AmmermanDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 1967
- General Motors Corp. v. Keener Motors, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1952
- National Bank of Kentucky v. Louisville Trust Co.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1933
- Faurecia Automotive Seating, Inc. v. Toledo Tool & Die Co.District Court, N.D. Ohio · 2008
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.