Berry Harvester Co. v. Walter A. Wood Mowing & Reaping MacHine Co.
New York Court of Appeals
Appeal from a judgment of the General Term of the Supreme Court in the third judicial department, entered February 25, 1895, which affirmed a judgment entered on a verdict for the defendant directed at Circuit.
Read the full summary
Appeal from a judgment of the General Term of the Supreme Court in the third judicial department, entered February 25, 1895, which affirmed a judgment entered on a verdict for the defendant directed at Circuit. This action was brought by the plaintiff, a foreign corporation, to recover from the defendant, a domestic corporation, damages to the amount of §300,000 for the breach of a tripartite agreement made on the eighth of August, 1890, between said corporations and one William H. Berry, who was at the time the vice-president and chief stockholder of the plaintiff. Mr. Berry was an inventor,…
1Opinion of the CourtVann, J.
In order to decide whether the defendant violated its contract with the plaintiff, it is necessary to see precisely what it agreed to do. There were three parties to the contract, and the promises and agreements made by each were substantially as follows :
1. In consideration of the covenants and agreements passing between the plaintiff and the defendant, the former granted to the latter an exclusive and perpetual license to make, use and sell harvesting and binding machines, and machines for making bands embracing any of the inventions of Mr. Berry, whether then made or thereafter to be made,…
2Cited by18 opinions
- M. O'Neil Supply Co. v. Petroleum Heat & Power Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1939
- Hughes v. . CumingNew York Court of Appeals · 1900
- Union Insurance Co. v. . Central Trust Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1899
- Shannon Copper Co. v. PotterArizona Supreme Court · 1910
- Avenue CLO Fund Ltd. v. Bank of America, NACourt of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 2013
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.