Miner v. Husted

157 N.W. 442, 191 Mich. 25, 1916 Mich. LEXIS 639
CourtMichigan Supreme Court
DecidedMarch 31, 1916
DocketDocket No. 6
StatusPublished

This text of 157 N.W. 442 (Miner v. Husted) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Michigan Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Miner v. Husted, 157 N.W. 442, 191 Mich. 25, 1916 Mich. LEXIS 639 (Mich. 1916).

Opinion

Stone, C. J.

The bill of complaint in this case was filed to enforce the performance of a certain contract, for an accounting, and for other relief.

The Allmetal Manufacturing Company, one of the defendants herein, is a corporation organized under the laws of this State. On the 22d day of October, 1912, the company was the owner of certain property situated in the city of Grand Rapids, including machinery, raw and manufactured materials, stationery, and office equipment, and also a certain written contract, dated June 8, 1912, with one J. E. Kresky, hereinafter called the Kresky contract. The said Kresky contract was an agreement between J. E. Kresky of Petaluma, Cal., and the Allmetal Manufacturing Company, whereby that company was granted the exclusive agency for a term of ten years for the sale, in that portion of the United States lying east of the Rocky Mountains, of the brooder stoves known as the “Pride of Petaluma,” also brooder burners and other accessories of said stoves, which stoves, brooders, and accessories were manufactured by said Kresky under patents held by him. Said contract contained an option for the purchase by said company, within two years after its date, of the exclusive right to manufacture and sell said articles in said territory on payment of $5,000. Said contract specified the prices at which said articles were to be sold by said Kresky to the Allmetal Manufacturing Company.

On October 22, 1912, complainant was the holder of 800 shares of the capital stock of said Allmetal Manufacturing Company, being the entire capital stock then issued. Seven hundred shares of the authorized capital stock had not .been issued. On that date, he and N. P. [28]*28Sylvester Husted entered into a written contract, which, contract will hereafter be referred to as Exhibit B, and was in the words and figures following:

“This agréement, made this 22d day of October, A. D. 1912, by and between Frank E. Miner of East Grand Rapids, Michigan, first party, and N. P. Sylvester Husted, of Grandville, Michigan, second party, witnesseth:
“Whereas, said first party is the holder of 800 shares of the capital stock of Allmetal Manufacturing Company, a corporation organized under the laws of the State of Michigan, and doing business at the city of Grand Rapids, in said State, and owning certain physical property situated in said city of Grand Rapids, including machinery, raw materials, manufactured materials, stationery and office equipment, and a certain contract in writing dated the 8th day of June, 1912, whereby one J. E. Kresky, of Petaluma, California, granted to Allmetal Manufacturing Company an exclusive sales agency under a certain patent or patents covering an invention known as ‘Kresky Rotary Burner’ for use in brooder stoves or otherwise, in that portion of the United States of America lying east of the Rocky Mountains, for the term of ten years from the date of said contract, and thereafter granted to said Allmetal Manufacturing Company the right to manufacture the same under said patents;
“And whereas, 700. shares of the authorized capital stock of said Allmetal Manufacturing Company have never been issued;
“And whereas, said first party has agreed to sell all of said capital stock of said Allmetal Manufacturing Company so held by him to said second party and said second party has agreed to buy said capital stock so held by first party, and to pay to said first party therefor certain sums of money hereinafter specified at the times and in the manner hereinafter specified;
“And whereas, it is mutually agreed between the parties hereto that said capital stock, together with said contract between J. E. Kresky and said Allmetal Manufacturing Company shall be held by the Michigan Trust Company, of said city of Grand Rapids, Michi[29]*29o-an, as trustee, for the purpose of securing the fulfillment, and until the final fulfillment of all the covenants, agreements and conditions hereinafter contained by said second party to be kept and performed:
“Now, therefore, it is mutually agreed between the-parties hereto as follows:
“First. For the considerations of $887.75 to be paid forthwith by party of the second part, and those hereinafter mentioned, party of the first part hereby sells, assigns, and sets over to party of the second part, 800 shares of stock in Allmetal Manufacturing Company, being the entire capital stock now issued; and does agree personally to pay forthwith all claims of every nature now existing against said corporation, except. claim of Stewart-Davis Advertising Agency; and party of the second part agrees that all accounts receivable of said corporation now existing belong to party of the first part.
“Second. Said party of the second part guarantees that said Allmetal Manufacturing Company shall in all respects fulfill and carry out the terms of said Contract between said J. E. Kresky and said Allmetal Manufacturing Company, and that in case said All-metal Manufacturing Company shall avail itself of the option contained in said contract to purchase of said J. E. Kresky the exclusive right to manufacture and sell the articles mentioned in said contract throughout the territory specified therein, said right shall be held by said the Michigan Trust Company in trust in lieu of said contract between said J. E. Kresky and said Allmetal Manufacturing Company in like manner as said shares, of stock as hereinafter stated.
“Third. As further consideration for the sale by said first party to said second party of said shares of the capital stock of said Allmetal Manufacturing Company, said second party agrees to pay to said first party, royalties on the sale of all stoves sold, or manufactured and sold under said contract with said Kresky as follows: Three dollars on each stove until 2,000 stoves are sold; two dollars royalty on each stove sold on the next 4,000; one dollar royalty on each stove sold above 6,000; said royalties to be paid during the life of said contract with said Kresky. If second party takes advantage of said option contained in said Kresky [30]*30contract, first party is to receive such royalties during the life of the patents covering said stove and burner mentioned in said Kresky contract; said royalties are to be paid to the first party at the end of each month for stoves sold during the month, excepting that during the months of January, February, March and April of each year, said royalties are to be paid at the end of each week. Second party shall furnish first party a report with each settlement showing the serial number of all stoves sold, to whom sold, and where sold, and first party shall have the right to examine the books of second party at any time during business hours, for the purpose of cheeking such reports.
“Fourth. Second party agrees to use due diligence and his best efforts to promote the business of selling brooder stoves under said Kresky contract, and guarantees to first party royalties on at least 275 stoves during the first seven months following the date of this agreement, and on at least 800 stoves each year thereafter during the life of this agreement.

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

Related

Westinghouse Electric & Manufacturing Co. v. Hubert
141 N.W. 600 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1913)
Benedict v. . Arnoux
49 N.E. 326 (New York Court of Appeals, 1898)
Cook v. American Tubing & Webbing Co.
65 A. 641 (Supreme Court of Rhode Island, 1906)
Brobston v. Penniman
25 S.E. 350 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1895)
Jaquith v. Hudson
5 Mich. 123 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1858)
Daily v. Litchfield
10 Mich. 29 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1862)
Davis v. Freeman
10 Mich. 188 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1862)
Peoria Marine & Fire Insurance v. Hall
12 Mich. 202 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1864)
Great Western Railway v. Wheeler
20 Mich. 419 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1870)
Stevenson v. Bay City
26 Mich. 44 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1872)
Richardson v. Woehler
26 Mich. 90 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1872)
Johnston v. Whittemore
27 Mich. 463 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1873)
Myer v. Hart
40 Mich. 517 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1879)
Watrous v. Allen
24 N.W. 104 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1885)
Detroit Motor Co. v. Third National Bank
69 N.W. 726 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1897)
State Savings Bank v. Montgomery
85 N.W. 879 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1901)
People's Savings Bank v. Hine
91 N.W. 130 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1902)
Powell v. Dwyer
112 N.W. 499 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1907)
Buckhout v. Witwer
122 N.W. 184 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1909)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
157 N.W. 442, 191 Mich. 25, 1916 Mich. LEXIS 639, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/miner-v-husted-mich-1916.