Wilfley v. New Standard Concentrator Co.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
In Error to the Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern Division of the Southern District of California. The plaintiffs in error sued the defendants in error to recover royalties under a license made on November 21, 1901, authorizing the defendants in error to make and sell concentrating tables under the Wilfley patent, owned and controlled by the plaintiffs in error.
Read the full summary
In Error to the Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern Division of the Southern District of California. The plaintiffs in error sued the defendants in error to recover royalties under a license made on November 21, 1901, authorizing the defendants in error to make and sell concentrating tables under the Wilfley patent, owned and controlled by the plaintiffs in error. The complaint alleged that In consideration of such license the defendants in error agreed to pay the plaintiffs in error certain royalties on the 1st day of each calendar month, and to make reports of the number of…
1Opinion of the CourtGirbert, Circuit Judge
(after stating the facts as above). It is contended that the Circuit Court erred in overruling the demurrers to the defense alleged in the answer, and in refusing to allow the plaintiffs in error to introduce evidence to prove the breaches of the contract alleged in the complaint. It is argued that the covenant of the defendants in error to pay the stipulated royalties is not conditional, in that it is not expressed as being conditioned upon the performance of the covenant to protect the exclusive rights so granted them, but is absolute in its terms; that the mutual covenants in the contract…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Barron v. FrinkCalifornia Supreme Court · 1866
- McKay v. SmithU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Massachusetts · 1889
- Standard Button Fastening Co. v. EllisMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1893
- Edison General Electric Co. v. Thackara Manufacturing Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1895
- National Rubber Co. v. Boston Rubber-Shoe Co.U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Massachusetts · 1890
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by16 opinions
- Hardesty v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1909
- Kittle Manufacturing Co. v. DavisCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1935
- Nachod & United States Signal Co. v. Automatic Signal Corp.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1939
- American Chlorophyll, Inc. v. SchertzSupreme Court of Virginia · 1940
- Penley Bros. v. HallCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1936
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.