Peltz v. Eichele
Supreme Court of Missouri
Appeal from St. Louis Circuit Court. I. The demurrer to the petition should have been sustained by reason of the illegality of the contract. _ (Addison Contr., 100, § 100 ; Chit. Contr. [48th ed.], 064; Id., note to p. 665 ; Comyn. Contr., 438 ; Sto. Contr., [6th ed., vol. 1,] p. 677, § 550; Id., 684, § 553 ; Smith Contr., 212, § 128; Parsons Contr., 2d vol., 750 & note; Long vs. Towl, 41 Mo., 398.) II.
Read the full summary
Appeal from St. Louis Circuit Court. I. The demurrer to the petition should have been sustained by reason of the illegality of the contract. _ (Addison Contr., 100, § 100 ; Chit. Contr. [48th ed.], 064; Id., note to p. 665 ; Comyn. Contr., 438 ; Sto. Contr., [6th ed., vol. 1,] p. 677, § 550; Id., 684, § 553 ; Smith Contr., 212, § 128; Parsons Contr., 2d vol., 750 & note; Long vs. Towl, 41 Mo., 398.) II. Plaintiffs were not entitled to recover, because of their fraud in the procurement of the contract. And it matters not how trivial the damage. (Smith vs. Kay, 7 House Lords, 775.) III.…
1Opinion of the CourtHough, Judge
On the 21th day of July, 1865, the defendant, who was a manufacturer of and dealer in matches in the city of St. Louis, entered into a contract under seal with the plaintiff, Peltz, and one Brunaugh, for the sale to them, for the sum of $20,000, of his entire factory and stock in trade, together with good will, proprietary stamp, trade marks, brands, and the use of the names of A. Eichele and A. Eichele & Co., employed by him in said business. This contract contained the, following covenant: “Said Eichele, further . covenanting, agrees that he will not enter into the manufacture of matches,…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Bateson v. ClarkSupreme Court of Missouri · 1865
- Dean v. EmersonMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1869
- Presbury v. Fisher & BennettSupreme Court of Missouri · 1853
3Cited by48 opinions
- Coonis v. RogersSupreme Court of Missouri · 1968
- Hursen v. GavinIllinois Supreme Court · 1896
- St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Railway Co. v. MatthewsSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1897
- Childs v. Kansas City, St. Joseph & Council Bluffs RailroadSupreme Court of Missouri · 1893
- Wiggins Ferry Co. v. Chicago & Alton RailroadSupreme Court of Missouri · 1881
43 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.