Legal Opinion

Matzka Corp. v. Kelly Dry-Pure Juice Corp.

Court of Chancery of Delaware

Decided July 10, 1933PublishedCited by 6 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

The Chancellor :

The first ground of demurrer is that the complainants have an adequate remedy at law. It is urged in support of this ground of demurrer, that the bill shows nothing more than a breach of contract which is adequately compensable in damages, and that a court of equity should therefore take no cognizance of it.

The contract makes a “transfer and assignment * * * to the Kelly Company of the exclusive world rights, covering the Matzka processes for working and/or preserving, without the use of preservatives, fruits, vegetables and coffee and all kinds of food and drink products * *…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Waterman v. MacKenzieSupreme Court of the United States · 1891
  2. Paulus v. M. M. Buck Mfg. Co.Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1904
  3. Neenan v. Otis Elevator Co.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1912
  4. Johnson Railroad Signal Co. v. Union Switch & Signal Co.U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Western Pennsylvania · 1893

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. Mechanical Ice Tray Corp. v. General Motors Corp.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1944
  2. Perma Research & Development Company v. Singer CompanyDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1970
  3. Baron v. Pressed Metals of America, Inc.Supreme Court of Delaware · 1956
  4. Park-In Theatres, Inc. v. Paramount-Richards Theatres, Inc.District Court, D. Delaware · 1950
  5. Baron v. Pressed Metals of America, Inc.Court of Chancery of Delaware · 1955

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

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

Powered by the Exa API