Matthews v. Green

U.S. Circuit Court

Matthews v. Green

19 F. 649, 1884 U.S. App. LEXIS 2090

DecidedFebruary 11, 1884

StatusPublished

This text of 19 F. 649 (Matthews v. Green) 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

Matthews v. Green, 19 F. 649, 1884 U.S. App. LEXIS 2090 (uscirct 1884).

Pincite

Opinion

Butler, J.

We see no serious objection to granting the relief asked for by the third prayer of the bill—that the license held by the respondent be sold towards satisfying the complainants’ judgments. The paper of February 13, 1874, executed by the parties, was-in[651]*651tended to and does control and regulate the use of all the “fountains ” obtained. It is, in effect, a license conferring on the respondent a right to. use the fountains in the city of Philadelphia, to the exclusion of all other persons. The compensation or price named, and to be paid, was the consideration for the fountains, and the use, thus limited. The respondent having failed to pay the judgments recovered, for money due under this contract, it is just that the license should be subjected to sale for this purpose.

The questions arising out of the first and second prayers need not be discussed. It is sufficient to say that the relief just indicated is all the complainants should have on the bill.

A, decree may he prepared accordingly.

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

Butler, J.

We see no serious objection to granting the relief asked for by the third prayer of the bill—that the license held by the respondent be sold towards satisfying the complainants’ judgments. The paper of February 13, 1874, executed by the parties, was-in[651]*651tended to and does control and regulate the use of all the “fountains ” obtained. It is, in effect, a license conferring on the respondent a right to. use the fountains in the city of Philadelphia, to the exclusion of all other persons. The compensation or price named, and to be paid, was the consideration for the fountains, and the use, thus limited. The respondent having failed to pay the judgments recovered, for money due under this contract, it is just that the license should be subjected to sale for this purpose.

The questions arising out of the first and second prayers need not be discussed. It is sufficient to say that the relief just indicated is all the complainants should have on the bill.

A, decree may he prepared accordingly.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

19 F. 649, 1884 U.S. App. LEXIS 2090, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matthews-v-green-uscirct-1884.