American Box Mach. Co. v. Crosman
U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Massachusetts
In Equity. Bill lor the specific performance of a contract. Decree for complainant. The contract in question in this case was executed January 28, 1888, and is as follows: “This agreement, made and entered into by and between the American Box Machine Company, of Amsterdam, New York, party of the first part, and George A. Grosman, John C. Metcalf, and John B. Rollins, all of Lynn, Massachusetts, and George W. Glazier, of Salem, Massachusetts, parties of the second part, and…
Read the full summary
In Equity. Bill lor the specific performance of a contract. Decree for complainant. The contract in question in this case was executed January 28, 1888, and is as follows: “This agreement, made and entered into by and between the American Box Machine Company, of Amsterdam, New York, party of the first part, and George A. Grosman, John C. Metcalf, and John B. Rollins, all of Lynn, Massachusetts, and George W. Glazier, of Salem, Massachusetts, parties of the second part, and the Lynn Box Machine Company, of Lynn, Massachusetts, party of tho third part, witnesseth: Whereas, party of the first…
1Opinion of the Court
PUTNAM, Circuit Judge.
Tlie prayer of tlie bill in this case asks expressly for a specific performance of the contract set out. It also contains some expressions looking to relief as on a bill for infringement of a patent. It is impossible to sustain the bill as one with a double aspect, because, in a bill for an infringement, the determination wlio are the necessary parties must be made from a different standpoint from that in a bill for specific enforcement of a, ■contract. Other substantial reasons might be given, but it is sufficient to add thai, for a bill with a double aspect, Ihe title…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Hartell v. TilghmanSupreme Court of the United States · 1879
- White v. RankinSupreme Court of the United States · 1892
- Magic Ruffle Co. v. Elm City Co.U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Connecticut · 1875
3Cited by4 opinions
- Indiana Mfg. Co. v. J. I. Case Threshing Mach. Co.Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1907
- Bradford v. Belknap Motor Co.U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Maine · 1900
- Keystone Type Foundry v. Portland Pub. Co.U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Maine · 1910
- Ratner v. City of Miami BeachDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1974