Chase v. Cox

U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern Pennsylvania

Chase v. Cox

41 F. 475, 1890 U.S. App. LEXIS 2028

CourtU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern Pennsylvania

DecidedJanuary 19, 1890

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 41 F. 475 (Chase v. Cox) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Chase v. Cox, 41 F. 475, 1890 U.S. App. LEXIS 2028 (circtedpa 1890).

Pincite

Opinion

Butler, J.,

(after stating the facts as above.) In answer to the infringement charged the defendant pleads a license. The plaintiff admits the execution of a license, but asserts its annulment by mutual agreement, prior to the acts complained of. This assertion presents the only material question raised. We do not find it supported by the proofs. On the contrary, the averments of the bill show quite plainly that the plaintiff supposed he had a right to terminate the license by notice, (for alleged non-compliance with its terms by the defendant,) and that he relied upon this alone for relief from its provisions. This case is governed by Purifier Co. v. Wolf, 28 Fed. Rep. 814, and Densmore v. Tanite Co., 32 Fed. Rep. 544. A suit at law upon the license will afford tho plaintiff adequate remedy for any just claim which he may have. A decree must therefore be entered sustaining the plea and dismissing the bill with costs.

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

Butler, J.,

(after stating the facts as above.) In answer to the infringement charged the defendant pleads a license. The plaintiff admits the execution of a license, but asserts its annulment by mutual agreement, prior to the acts complained of. This assertion presents the only material question raised. We do not find it supported by the proofs. On the contrary, the averments of the bill show quite plainly that the plaintiff supposed he had a right to terminate the license by notice, (for alleged non-compliance with its terms by the defendant,) and that he relied upon this alone for relief from its provisions. This case is governed by Purifier Co. v. Wolf, 28 Fed. Rep. 814, and Densmore v. Tanite Co., 32 Fed. Rep. 544. A suit at law upon the license will afford tho plaintiff adequate remedy for any just claim which he may have. A decree must therefore be entered sustaining the plea and dismissing the bill with costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

41 F. 475, 1890 U.S. App. LEXIS 2028, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/chase-v-cox-circtedpa-1890.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack