Fraser v. Kent
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Appeal by the plaintiff, George H. Fraser, from a judgment of the Supreme Court in favor of the defendant, entered in the office of the clerk of the county of Kings on the 10th day of December, 1919, upon the decision of the court rendered after a trial at the Kings Trial Term, the jury having been withdrawn and discharged upon consent of the parties.
Read the full summary
Appeal by the plaintiff, George H. Fraser, from a judgment of the Supreme Court in favor of the defendant, entered in the office of the clerk of the county of Kings on the 10th day of December, 1919, upon the decision of the court rendered after a trial at the Kings Trial Term, the jury having been withdrawn and discharged upon consent of the parties. In 1899, Fraser, the plaintiff, and Kent, the defendant, made a written contract whereby Kent assigned his patent for the Kent mill to Fraser and Fraser agreed to make and to sell the mill of that type and to pay Kent a royalty of $600 upon each…
1Opinion of the Court
Jenks, P. J.:
The law recognizes such a contract. (Magnolia Anti-Friction Metal Co. v. Singley, 17 N. Y. Supp. 251, 253, and cases cited.) The issue tried is whether Kent broke the covenant contained in the 2d paragraph. Fraser contends that Kent did so when in 1901 Kent filed an application for a patent *745for the Hubbard mill. This contention rests upon certain drawings in that application numbered 11, 12 and 13. It seems necessary to explain the contention by reference to the Kent mill. This mill (and its development, the Maxecon mill) crushes substances like ore or rock. The type is known as…
2Cases cited14 opinions
- Seymour v. OsborneSupreme Court of the United States · 1871
- Miller v. Eagle Manufacturing Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1894
- Westinghouse v. Boyden Power Brake Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1898
- The City of New YorkSupreme Court of the United States · 1893
- Burt v. EvorySupreme Court of the United States · 1890
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- Canfield v. StateAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1935
- Canfield v. StateAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1935
- Steiner v. BraunsteinAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York · 1935
- Utica Trust & Deposit Co. v. DeckerAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1926