Legal Opinion

Hercules Glue Co. v. Littooy

California Court of Appeal

Decided February 25, 1938No. Civ. 10559PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

GRAY, J., pro tem.

The complaint sought a decree compelling appellant to specifically perform his promise contained in the contract of the parties, dated December 26, 1928, by assigning to respondent a patent for a chemical formula, called “Fluxit 4-x”. The cross-complaint asked (1) an accounting of a joint venture, which it alleged had been created by the parties’ prior contract of August 27, 1924, (2) a declaration that respondent held, in trust for appellant, a patent for a formula, known as “Fluxit No. 1”, which appellant had previously assigned to respondent, and (3) the reasonable value…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Barnhart Aircraft, Inc. v. PrestonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1931
  2. O'Connell v. LampeCalifornia Supreme Court · 1929
  3. Peters v. BinnardCalifornia Supreme Court · 1933
  4. Coleman v. DawsonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1930
  5. Wright v. Vocation Organ Co.Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1906

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Hercules Glue Co. v. LittooyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1941
  2. Du Frene v. Kaiser Steel Corp.California Court of Appeal · 1964
  3. Bryon v. MacDonaldCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1952

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API