Legal Opinion
Scannell v. Ransome Concrete Machinery Co.
Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas
Decided February 1, 1933PublishedCited by 1 opinion
1Opinion of the CourtLyon, J.
This is a motion to strike out an answer as sham. Affidavits in support and against have been filed.
The action is brought to recover royalties due under a license granted by the plaintiff to the defendant to manufacture and sell the device referred to in a certain patent covering a mast erecting apparatus, dated April 24th, 1928, and known by number 1,667,440.
The license was granted under an agreement dated May 20th, 1929, and grants a non-exclusive right to manufacture, use and sell the apparatus in question to the end of the term of the patent. The royalty to be paid was at the rate of $50…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- International Signal Co. v. Marconi Wireless Telegraph Co. of AmericaNew Jersey Court of Chancery · 1918
- Macon Knitting Co. v. Leicester Mills Co.New Jersey Court of Chancery · 1903
- Ferry-Hallock Co. v. Progressive Paper Box Co.New Jersey Court of Chancery · 1909
- American Mechanical Improvement Co. v. Des Lauriers Aircraft Corp.Supreme Court of New Jersey · 1922
3Cited by1 opinion
- Autographic Register Co. v. Philip Hano Co., IncCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1952