Legal Opinion
Sachs v. Cluett, Peabody & Co.
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Decided February 19, 1943PublishedCited by 30 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtMartin, P. J.
The complaint sets forth that the plaintiff developed a novel principle and novel machinery for use in the shrinking of fabrics, which principle and machinery he maintained in secrecy and which for the purposes of the complaint are referred to as the “ Saxonizing Process.”
In 1921, plaintiff entered into an agreement to disclose his process and exhibit his machinery to the defendant and the defendant promised 11 to treat the principle so disclosed and the machinery so exhibited in the strictest confidence and would make no disclosure or use thereof or any part thereof for its own use or…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Peabody v. NorfolkMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1868
- Tabor v. . HoffmanNew York Court of Appeals · 1889
- Bristol v. Equitable Life Assurance SocietyNew York Court of Appeals · 1892
- Hifler v. Calmac Oil & Gas Corp.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1939
3Cited by30 opinions
- Nifty Foods Corporation v. The Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Company, Inc. And Pet IncorporatedCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1980
- Sporn v. MCA Records, Inc.New York Court of Appeals · 1983
- Norton J. Lehman v. Dow Jones & Company, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1986
- Stearns v. WilliamsIdaho Supreme Court · 1952
- Lennon v. SeamanDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1999
25 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.