Clark v. West

125 A.D. 654, 110 N.Y.S. 110, 1908 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2858

This text of 125 A.D. 654 (Clark v. West) 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
Clark v. West, 125 A.D. 654, 110 N.Y.S. 110, 1908 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2858 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1908).

Opinions

Rich, J. :

The action is based upon a written contract between the parties, which is made a part of the complaint, by the terms of which the [655]*655plaintiff was to prepare for publication a series of text books, upon specified subjects, to be published by the defendant if accepted by him. The contract contains, among others, the following provisions:

“ The first party agrees to totally abstain from the use of intoxicating liquors during the continuance of this contract, and that the payment to him in accordance with the terms of this contract of any money in excess of $2 per page is dependent on the faithful performance of this as well as the other conditions of this contract.
The copyright of all books prepared by the first party under this contract shall be taken out in his name, and immediately thereafter assigned by him to the second party, subject to the conditions of this contract.”
“ In consideration of the above promises of the first party, the second party agrees to pay to the first party $2 per page, including the index, but not the table of cases, nor other pages not printed from copy furnished by him and accepted by the said second party, on each book prepared by the first party under this contract and accepted by the second party, and if said first party abstains from the use of intoxicating liquor and otherwise fulfills his agreements as hereinbefore set forth, he shall be paid an additional $4 per page in manner hereinafter stated.”
After the publication of any book or books prepared by the first party under this contract, he shall at the end of every six months be entitled to receive, and the second party agrees to pay him, an amount equal to one-sixth of the net receipts from the combined sales of all books which shall have been prepared by the said first party and published by the said second party under this contract, less any and all payments previously made said first party and all money then due the second party from the first party, until the amount of $6 per page of each book shall have been paid, after which the first party shall have no right, title or interest in said books or the receipts from the sales thereof.”

The complaint alleges that the plaintiff began work under the contract shortly after Hay 1, 1900, in the preparation of the book on Corporations, selected by the defendant to be first written, completing it on June 1, 1902, delivering to the defendant, in monthly installments, the manuscrijDt thereof, the whole of which the defendant accepted and published on or about June 23, 1902; that such [656]*656book contained 3,489 printed pages ; that defendant paid to plaintiff during the preparation thereof the sum of $6,938, being the $2 per page provided for in the contract; that defendant sold and caused to be sold a large number of the copies of said book, and realized therefrom large net receipts, the amount of which was unknown to plaintiff, and, though often requested, failed and refused to account therefor or to pay the plaintiff any greater amount than the $2 per page specified in the contract. The complaint then alleges:

X. That plaintiff duly and fully performed all the stipulations and conditions of said contract on Ms part up to the time of the breach of said contract by the defendant, as hereinafter more specifically alleged, save and except only the stipulation to totally abstain from the use of intoxicating liquor during the continuance of said contract, and at the time of said breach by the defendant plaintiff was able, ready and willing to perform all the stipulations and conditions upon his part, and would have performed the same except for said breach by the defendant.
“ XI. That plaintiff did not totally abstain from the use of intoxicating liquor during the continuance of said contract, but such use by plaintiff was not excessive and did not prevent or interfere with the due and full performance by the plaintiff of all the other stipulations and conditions upon his part in said contract.
“ XII. That defendant waived plaintiff’s breach of the stipulation to totally abstain from the use of intoxicating liquors during the continuance of said contract; that long prior to the completion of said manuscript on Corporations, and its delivery to and acceptance by the defendant, the defendant had full knowledge and well knew of plaintiff’s said use of intoxicating liquor during the continuance of said contract, but nevertheless acquiesced in and failed to object thereto, and did not terminate the contract on account thereof; that with full knowledge of said breach by the plaintiff defendant continued to exact and require of the plaintiff performance of all the other stipulations and conditions of said contract and treated the same as still in force, and Continued to receive and did receive installments of manuscript under said contract, and continued to make and did make payments to plaintiff by way of advancements, and finally accepted and published said manuscript as [657]*657aforesaid; that at no time during the performance of said contract by the plaintiff did the defendant notify or intimate to the plaintiff that defendant would insist upon strict compliance with said stipulation to totally abstain from the use of intoxicating liquor, or that defendant intended to take advantage of plaintiff’s said breach, and on account and by reason thereof refuse to pay plaintiff the royalty stipulated in said contract; that, on the contrary, and with full knowledge of plaintiff’s said use of intoxicating liquors, defendant repeatedly avowed and represented to the plaintiff that he was entitled to and would receive said royalty payments, and plaintiff believed and relied upon said representations, and in reliance thereon continued in the performance of said contract until the time of the breach thereof by the defendant as hereinafter specifically alleged, and at all times during the writing of said treatise on Corporations and after as well as before publication thereof as aforesaid, it was mutually understood, agreed and intended by the parties hereto that notwithstanding plaintiff’s said use of intoxicating liquors he was nevertheless entitled to receive and would receive said royalty as the same accrued under said contract.
“ XIII. That defendant on or about the year 1902 without plaintiff’s consent and in violation of the provisions of said contract, caused plaintiff’s said treatise on Corporations to be copyrighted in the name of the Keefe-Davidson Law Book Company, and thereby appropriated and converted to his own use the copyright of said treatise and deprived plaintiff of the security which he had under said contract for the due performance thereof by the defendant.”

The reasonable value of the copyright is alleged to be $20,814. Judgment is demanded as follows:

“ (1) That defendant forthwith account to this plaintiff for all copies of said treatise on Corporations which have been sold as aforesaid and pay over to plaintiff one-sixth of the net profits thereof, less the sum of sixty-nine hundred and thirty-eight dollars ($6,938), the receipt whereof is admitted, in accordance with the terms of said contract.
“ (2) That defendant forthwith cause the copyright of said treatise on Corporations to be transferred to and vested in the plaintiff, sub[658]

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

Related

Cowenhoven v. . Ball
23 N.E. 470 (New York Court of Appeals, 1890)
Gibson Electric Co. v. Liverpooland London & Globe Insurance
54 N.E. 23 (New York Court of Appeals, 1899)
Draper v. Oswego County Fire Relief Ass'n
82 N.E. 755 (New York Court of Appeals, 1907)
Crocker-Wheeler Co. v. Varick Realty Co.
104 A.D. 568 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1905)
Pope Manufacturing Co. v. Rubber Goods Manufacturing Co.
110 A.D. 341 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1905)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
125 A.D. 654, 110 N.Y.S. 110, 1908 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2858, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/clark-v-west-nyappdiv-1908.