Densmore v. Tanite Co.

U.S. Circuit Court

Densmore v. Tanite Co.

32 F. 544, 1887 U.S. App. LEXIS 2791

CourtUnited States Circuit Court

DecidedOctober 10, 1887

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 32 F. 544 (Densmore v. Tanite Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering United States Circuit Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Densmore v. Tanite Co., 32 F. 544, 1887 U.S. App. LEXIS 2791 (uscirct 1887).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

As distinctly stated in complainant’s brief, the bill is brought to annul the license. “There is but one cause of action, and that is to annul and set aside the license.” There can be no doubt that such a cause of action falls within the cognizance of equity. But the bill avers no facts to support the cause. The only specific allegations in this direction are that the respondent has failed to make return of his manufactures and sales, and to pay royalty. In other words, that he has not performed his contract in this regard. Other general allegations of wrong stated are immaterial. That such specific allegations, if proved, afford no ground for annulling a contract, is too clear to require the citation of authority. The case is hardly distinguishable from Purifier Co. v. Wolf, 28 Fed. Rep. 814, decided by this court at the last term. There the complainants did not ask for a decree of annulment, but proceeded on the basis that the contract was annulled by the respondent’s neglect to perform. The court held, as ive must here, that the complainant has an adequate remedy at law for the injuries complained of. The demurrer must therefore be sustained, and the bill dismissed, with costs.

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

Per Curiam.

As distinctly stated in complainant’s brief, the bill is brought to annul the license. “There is but one cause of action, and that is to annul and set aside the license.” There can be no doubt that such a cause of action falls within the cognizance of equity. But the bill avers no facts to support the cause. The only specific allegations in this direction are that the respondent has failed to make return of his manufactures and sales, and to pay royalty. In other words, that he has not performed his contract in this regard. Other general allegations of wrong stated are immaterial. That such specific allegations, if proved, afford no ground for annulling a contract, is too clear to require the citation of authority. The case is hardly distinguishable from Purifier Co. v. Wolf, 28 Fed. Rep. 814, decided by this court at the last term. There the complainants did not ask for a decree of annulment, but proceeded on the basis that the contract was annulled by the respondent’s neglect to perform. The court held, as ive must here, that the complainant has an adequate remedy at law for the injuries complained of. The demurrer must therefore be sustained, and the bill dismissed, with costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

32 F. 544, 1887 U.S. App. LEXIS 2791, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/densmore-v-tanite-co-uscirct-1887.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack