Harlow v. Putnam
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Contract against George D. Putnam and David E. Saunders, Jr., to recover $33.33, alleged to be due the plaintiff on May 1,1875, under the following agreement, dated March 27, 1875, and signed by the plaintiff and defendants : “ Whereas Thomas S. Harlow is the owner of letters patent of the United States, numbered 77,458, for an improvement in grate bars, and Messrs.
Read the full summary
Contract against George D. Putnam and David E. Saunders, Jr., to recover $33.33, alleged to be due the plaintiff on May 1,1875, under the following agreement, dated March 27, 1875, and signed by the plaintiff and defendants : “ Whereas Thomas S. Harlow is the owner of letters patent of the United States, numbered 77,458, for an improvement in grate bars, and Messrs. George D. Putnam and David E. Saunders, Jr., copartners, doing business under the name of George D. Putnam & Co., are desirous of manufacturing grate bars under said letters patent, and of securing a right to purchase the same…
1Opinion of the CourtSoule, J.
In consideration of an exclusive license, for the term of about one year, to manufacture certain grate bars under a patent, and of the undertaking of the plaintiffs to convey said patent to the defendants, on terms set forth in a written contract, the defendants undertook to pay the plaintiff the sum of $83.83 on the first day of each month until the expiration of the year, the sum so paid to be counted as a part of the agreed price of the patent, if the defendants should elect at the end of the year to buy the patent, but otherwise to be regarded as payment for the license. Before the second…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Jackson v. AllenMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1876
- Nash v. LullMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1869
3Cited by19 opinions
- Parrot v. Mexican Central Railway Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1911
- Gloucester Isinglass & Glue Co. v. Russia Cement Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1891
- White v. LeeU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Massachusetts · 1882
- Eno v. Prime Manufacturing Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1943
- The Armstrong Co. v. Shell Co. of Cal.California Court of Appeal · 1929
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.