Bennett v. Iron Clad Manufacturing Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Bennett v. Iron Clad Manufacturing Co.

127 A.D. 943, 111 N.Y.S. 1109

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedJuly 15, 1908

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 127 A.D. 943 (Bennett v. Iron Clad Manufacturing Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Bennett v. Iron Clad Manufacturing Co., 127 A.D. 943, 111 N.Y.S. 1109 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1908).

Pincite

Opinion

Kruse, J,:

The plaintiff is the'patentee of certain metal seamless' baskets. He made'a contract with the'-defendant grantirig.lt theright to make-and-séll the"" saíne; arid the defendant agreed to paydherfe’for is ñ loyalty a-fixed price.: It Is" contended by. the plaintiff that the def ehdarit made - arid sold' baskets; 'for Which thexoyalty-bas1.not been paid. 1 The’acti'on’is brought to recover the Same, and a verdict was; rendered in plaintiff’s favor for the sum -óf §540. From the judgmeht entered thereon;-and the order-denying 'the ¡defendant’» motion' for a 'new ' trial,-¡the defendant appeals. The casé has -been befóte ds ‘once before, arid á "■ judgment-in-favor of the plaintiff, was reversed -and' a¡ nevr trial granted. (Bennett v. Iron Clad Manufacturing Co. 121 App. Div. 133.) ' The’crdeial faCt'id. controversy.hetwéeñ-these patties isnot-the number ¡of - seamless baskets' Which ’ the defendant manufactured and sold. That does-not-seem to be-in dispute;'but1 ' whether .any. of -them, and-if-so how many,--were Of-the kind1 add ''embodied the-' spfeeiaL:feáturés/;arid; are covered:by, trié ¡contract, between the''-parties.'" The ; defendant, contends, and has contended* all the way through ¡this litigation, that " since -the* judgment - in. the action between • these same *' parties declaring the1 con- f tract forfdited- add- -canceled '(Bennett v. Iron Clad Manufacturing Co. 90 App. Div. 611)4it has hot'.-manufactured Or-sold" metal baskets-of1 thé¡ description :or ’• kind*covered?by the. cohtfactv." T'dO'dot’ see -that "the-plaintiff’s'case is ady ’ stronger than-it was-when-here before,-‘add We'reversed thé 'jtldgmedt. "Thefe is 1 more evidence of the'same kind, but ¡it-is lacking ¡id'probative’'force ¡Upon the"' qnestiotim’dispute; ■ Theessédtial-eleíirent 'sribwínig-’that'th'é ‘defendant-irianu-' * factdted; add sold baskets embodying the 'special- features’riamed-iri’tiie’contract,-1 is whriting." I think the- judgment should be. reversed, and 4'¿ew’tnal1 granted'.' *' AH'- concurred; ■ excfept. Williams,. J., - who* dissented: - Judgment* " and '-'orderh reversed and new trial'ordetedp with?-costs to hppellaht td"’abide''event, tip6nni" questions bf lakh anddactu i-<-i - ■ * tli A A .Avma> ,;i .suiniv-iLMiJoTb wa

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Kruse, J,:

The plaintiff is the'patentee of certain metal seamless' baskets. He made'a contract with the'-defendant grantirig.lt theright to make-and-séll the"" saíne; arid the defendant agreed to paydherfe’for is ñ loyalty a-fixed price.: It Is" contended by. the plaintiff that the def ehdarit made - arid sold' baskets; 'for Which thexoyalty-bas1.not been paid. 1 The’acti'on’is brought to recover the Same, and a verdict was; rendered in plaintiff’s favor for the sum -óf §540. From the judgmeht entered thereon;-and the order-denying 'the ¡defendant’» motion' for a 'new ' trial,-¡the defendant appeals. The casé has -been befóte ds ‘once before, arid á "■ judgment-in-favor of the plaintiff, was reversed -and' a¡ nevr trial granted. (Bennett v. Iron Clad Manufacturing Co. 121 App. Div. 133.) ' The’crdeial faCt'id. controversy.hetwéeñ-these patties isnot-the number ¡of - seamless baskets' Which ’ the defendant manufactured and sold. That does-not-seem to be-in dispute;'but1 ' whether .any. of -them, and-if-so how many,--were Of-the kind1 add ''embodied the-' spfeeiaL:feáturés/;arid; are covered:by, trié ¡contract, between the''-parties.'" The ; defendant, contends, and has contended* all the way through ¡this litigation, that " since -the* judgment - in. the action between • these same *' parties declaring the1 con- f tract forfdited- add- -canceled '(Bennett v. Iron Clad Manufacturing Co. 90 App. Div. 611)4it has hot'.-manufactured Or-sold" metal baskets-of1 thé¡ description :or ’• kind*covered?by the. cohtfactv." T'dO'dot’ see -that "the-plaintiff’s'case is ady ’ stronger than-it was-when-here before,-‘add We'reversed thé 'jtldgmedt. "Thefe is 1 more evidence of the'same kind, but ¡it-is lacking ¡id'probative’'force ¡Upon the"' qnestiotim’dispute; ■ Theessédtial-eleíirent 'sribwínig-’that'th'é ‘defendant-irianu-' * factdted; add sold baskets embodying the 'special- features’riamed-iri’tiie’contract,-1 is whriting." I think the- judgment should be. reversed, and 4'¿ew’tnal1 granted'.' *' AH'- concurred; ■ excfept. Williams,. J., - who* dissented: - Judgment* " and '-'orderh reversed and new trial'ordetedp with?-costs to hppellaht td"’abide''event, tip6nni" questions bf lakh anddactu i-<-i - ■ * tli A A .Avma> ,;i .suiniv-iLMiJoTb wa

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

127 A.D. 943, 111 N.Y.S. 1109, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bennett-v-iron-clad-manufacturing-co-nyappdiv-1908.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack