Legal Opinion

Harris v. United Automatic Cigarette Co.

California Court of Appeal

Decided June 4, 1931No. Docket No. 6596Published

1Opinion of the Court

BISHOP, J., pro tem.

Plaintiff seeks a reversal of the judgment, by which he was denied all relief, on the ground that the findings are contrary to and not supported by the evidence. We find his position well taken.

The action is based upon a contract between defendants (copartners) and plaintiff, in which it is recited that the plaintiff had been working for some time in defendant’s employ in the development of a cigarette vending machine, and that defendants were desirous of acquiring all plaintiff’s interest in “any inventions or especially constructive parts that may have been suggested . .…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Lobb v. BrownCalifornia Supreme Court · 1929
  2. Klauder-Weldon Dyeing Machine Co. v. WeldonNew York Supreme Court · 1914

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

Powered by the Exa API