Hume v. Mears
Oregon Supreme Court
From Multnomah: Robert G. Morrow, Judge. Department 1. The plaintiff sues to recover damages for the breach by the United States Cashier Company and Thomas Bilyeu of a contract which the plaintiff alleges bound them to pay him a commission for finding a purchaser for certain British patent rights of which they claimed to be the owners.
Read the full summary
From Multnomah: Robert G. Morrow, Judge. Department 1. The plaintiff sues to recover damages for the breach by the United States Cashier Company and Thomas Bilyeu of a contract which the plaintiff alleges bound them to pay him a commission for finding a purchaser for certain British patent rights of which they claimed to be the owners. He claims as the assignee of a cause of action arising out of the contract made by the company and Bilyeu with one Goodbody and also for a breach of an agreement supplementary thereto made with the plaintiff himself. These contracts are set out as exhibits to…
1Opinion of the Court
BURNETT, J. —
On September 25,1912, the Cashier Company and Bilyeu as parties of the first part made the written agreement with Arthur E. Goodbody whereby they granted to the latter “the full right and privilege of selling and disposing of the English patent rights owned by them in the machine known as the Cashier Machine and the machines which have been developed therefrom by the said Cashier Company or which may hereafter be developed therefrom,” in the kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. It was stipulated therein that “the price which the said Cashier Company and the said Bilyeu shall…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Dalzell v. Dueber Watch Case Manufacturing Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1893
- Cammeyer v. NewtonSupreme Court of the United States · 1877
- Hendrie v. SaylesSupreme Court of the United States · 1879
- Hammond v. Mason & Hamlin Organ Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1876
- Chadwick v. Oregon-Washington R. & N. Co.Oregon Supreme Court · 1914
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by1 opinion
- Rescue Technology, Inc. v. Claw, Inc.Court of Appeals of Oregon · 1998