Kaffeman v. Stern

City of New York Municipal Court

Kaffeman v. Stern

23 Misc. 599, 53 N.Y.S. 260

CourtCity of New York Municipal Court

DecidedMay 15, 1898

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 23 Misc. 599 (Kaffeman v. Stern) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering City of New York Municipal Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Kaffeman v. Stern, 23 Misc. 599, 53 N.Y.S. 260 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1898).

Pincite

Opinion

O’Dwyer, J.

Assuming that “ Lissauer and Sondheim ” were necessary parties- that fact appeared upon the face of the complaint, and the objection should have been taken by denrurrer. Hot having been so taken it was -waived. Code Civ. Pro., § 488, subd. 5, and.§ 499; Fourth Nat. Bank v. Scott, 31 Hun, 301.

If -it had been intended to restrict "the licensors from manufacturing under the patent, such a covenant should have been inserted in the -agreement.

Furthermore the defendants cannot use the patent and .refuse to pay the license fees provided for by the contract." McKay v. Smith, 39 Fed. Repr. 556.

The judgment appealed from should be affirmed, with costs.

McCabthy, J., concurs.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.

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