Legal Opinion
Dancel v. Goodyear Shoe Machinery Co.
U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York
Decided February 2, 1905PublishedCited by 11 opinions
In Equity.
1Opinion of the Court
HAZEL, District Judge.
This action was brought to recover unpaid installments alleged to be due upon a written contract, dated January 2, 1892, between complainants’ intestate and the Goodyear Shoe Machinery Company of Hartford, Conn. The contract relates to an assignment to said company of letters patent issued to Christian Dancel, and contains the following provision:
“That the Goodyear Company, in consideration of said assignments and of the agreements of said Dancel herein contained, doth agree to pay to said Dancel in each year, while the United States letters patent No. 459,036 remain in…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- Wicker v. HoppockSupreme Court of the United States · 1867
- Gregory v. StetsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1890
- Johnson v. RiskSupreme Court of the United States · 1890
- In re NegusNew York Supreme Court · 1832
- Port v. JacksonNew York Supreme Court · 1819
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by11 opinions
- Silver King Coalition Mines Co. of Nevada v. Silver King Consol. Mining Co. of UtahCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1913
- Cobb v. Interstate Mortgage CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1927
- Philadelphia Rubber Works Co. v. U. S. Rubber Reclaiming WorkCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1921
- Stonega Coke & Coal Co. v. PriceCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 1939
- Loomis F.G. Assn. v. California F. Exch.California Court of Appeal · 1932
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.