Legal Opinion

Russell v. Lathrop

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Decided March 7, 1877PublishedCited by 9 opinions

Writ oe review of a judgment recovered by the defendant in review against the plaintiff in review on the following con* tract in writing, dated January 22, 1870, and signed by the plaintiff in review and James T. Frary: “ It is agreed between H. A. Lathrop of Sharon, and James T. Frary and Charles W. Russell of New York, that for services heretofore rendered by said Lathrop to said Frary and Russell, they shall procure from the Lamson & Goodnow Manufacturing Company for him…

Read the full summary

Writ oe review of a judgment recovered by the defendant in review against the plaintiff in review on the following con* tract in writing, dated January 22, 1870, and signed by the plaintiff in review and James T. Frary: “ It is agreed between H. A. Lathrop of Sharon, and James T. Frary and Charles W. Russell of New York, that for services heretofore rendered by said Lathrop to said Frary and Russell, they shall procure from the Lamson & Goodnow Manufacturing Company for him a license to manufacture at his said Lathrop’a works, in Sharon aforesaid, and not elsewhere, and sell three thousand…

1Opinion of the CourtDevens, J.

The defendant in review, the original plaintiff, relies only on an order that a bill in equity, alleging certain violations of the patent referred to in the written agreement, be taken pro eonfesso, as “ a decree or judgment establishing the validity of ” the patent. When this case was last before the court, it was not necessary to decide this question; but it should now be determined, for if no such decree or judgment, as was contemplated by the agreement, has been rendered, the defendant in review cannot maintain this action, and a discussion of other questions presented by the bill of…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Frow v. De La VegaSupreme Court of the United States · 1872
  2. Forbes v. TuckermanMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1874
  3. Rose v. WoodruffNew York Court of Chancery · 1820

3Cited by9 opinions

  1. Ginn v. AlmyMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1912
  2. McArthur v. Hood Rubber Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1915
  3. Hutchins v. NickersonMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1912
  4. Merchants National Bank v. MorrisseyMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1953
  5. Mayor of Cambridge v. DeanMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1938

4 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