Arnold v. North American Chemical Co.
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Contract for the alleged breach of a contract in writing dated January 20, 1908, relating to the “Besto” shoe filler, whereby, in consideration of the agreement of the plaintiff therein contained, the defendant “agrees that if ever it sells the filler business for Canada or for any foreign country, the said Arnold shall receive from the net proceeds of every such sale a share corresponding to his recent proportionate holdings of stock in said Company,” as therein further…
Read the full summary
Contract for the alleged breach of a contract in writing dated January 20, 1908, relating to the “Besto” shoe filler, whereby, in consideration of the agreement of the plaintiff therein contained, the defendant “agrees that if ever it sells the filler business for Canada or for any foreign country, the said Arnold shall receive from the net proceeds of every such sale a share corresponding to his recent proportionate holdings of stock in said Company,” as therein further specified. Writ dated April 21, 1916. The case was referred to an auditor, and, after his first report, was recommitted to…
1Opinion of the CourtRugg, C. J.
The defendant in a written contract with the plaintiff under date of January 20, 1908, agrees “that if ever it' sells the filler business for Canada or for any foreign country,” it will pay him a proportionate part thereof. The question is whether the defendant has become liable under this term of the contract. The “filler business” was the right to manufacture and sell “a certain compound known as ‘Besto’ shoe filler, a patented article used in the manufacture of shoes.” The defendant entered into a contract on April 5, 1909, whereby it granted to a British corporation, which theretofore had…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Waterman v. MacKenzieSupreme Court of the United States · 1891
- Gayler v. WilderSupreme Court of the United States · 1851
- Sturm v. BokerSupreme Court of the United States · 1893
- Hunt v. WymanMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1868
- Pope Manufacturing Co. v. Gormully & Jeffery Manufacturing Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1892
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by14 opinions
- Estate of G. R. Gowdey, Deceased, and Verna E. Gowdey, and Surviving Spouse v. Commissioner of Internal RevenueCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1962
- Osgood v. Tax CommissionerMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1920
- MacDonald v. HawkerMassachusetts Appeals Court · 1981
- Madding v. Indiana Department of State RevenueIndiana Court of Appeals · 1971
- Charlestown Five Cents Sav. Bank v. WhiteDistrict Court, D. Massachusetts · 1939
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.