Murray v. Fales

106 N.W. 282, 142 Mich. 605, 1906 Mich. LEXIS 567
CourtMichigan Supreme Court
DecidedJanuary 23, 1906
DocketDocket No. 141
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 106 N.W. 282 (Murray v. Fales) 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
Murray v. Fales, 106 N.W. 282, 142 Mich. 605, 1906 Mich. LEXIS 567 (Mich. 1906).

Opinion

Moore, J.

The bill of complaint in this case was filed in complainant’s own behalf and as trustee of the interests of Charles M. Beckwith. It is an injunction bill. After a hearing a decree was entered containing the following provisions:

“ 1. That a perpetual injunction issue out of and under the seal of this court enjoining the defendant, the Keeley Institute of West Michigan, from paying over any moneys as royalties on the contract mentioned in said bill of complaint and answer and received in evidence, wherein the said Keeley Institute of West Michigan contracted to pay certain royalties to George W. Fales, which said contract was afterwards assigned to said James W. Fales, the defendant herein; and that said Keeley Institute of West Michigan, from the time of the entry of said decree, do [606]*606pay, and is hereby required to pay, said royalties under said contract to the complainant assigned.
“2. That the said complainant, Dennis Murray, and Charles M. Beckwith, are herewith decreed to be the sole and exclusive owners of the franchise and rights upon which the 1st day of December, A. D. 1891, were, by the Leslie E. Keeley Company, a body corporate of the State of Illinois, set over, transferred, and conveyed to the Keeley Institute, a body corporate under the laws of the State of Michigan, in pursuance of a certain contract upon said date entered into by and between said Leslie E. Keeley Company and the said Keeley Institute, which said contract in and by its terms granted and conveyed to said Keeley Institute, its successors or assigns, the sole and exclusive agency for the sale and administration of Dr., Leslie E. Keeley’s chloride of gold remedies in the State of Michigan; and that the said defendant James W. Fales has no right, title, or interest in and to any part of the territory of the State of Michigan, or the title to any portion of said franchise, by reason of any conveyance to him, by the said Keeley Institute, or in any other manner; and that the entire rights of said Janies W. Fales in and to the entire State of Michigan, held by him in any manner Or form, are hereby declared and decreed to be in the said complainant and the said Charles M. Beckwith.
“ 3. That the said James W. Fales pay to the said complainant andthesaid Charles M. Beckwith all moneys which the said Keeley Institute have heretofore paid to him under protest as royalties within 60 days after the entry of this decree, which said royalties amount to the sum of $170.88, together with the interest thereon from the date of each respective payment at the rate of 5 per cent.
“4. That the clerk of this court, to whom there has been paid certain royalties from time to time by the order of the court, is hereby directed to pay to the said complainant, Dennis Murray, and the said Charles M. Beck-with, all of the moneys in his hands which have been paid to the said Keeley Institute under the order of the court. ''
“5. That the said Dennis Murray and Charles M. Beck-with are hereby declared and decreed to, be entitled to hereafter receive from the Keeley Institute of West Michigan any and all royalties that may become due under the terms of said contract between said company and the said George W. Fales, and are authorized and empowered to collect from said company said royalties, and in [607]*607every other way are hereby declared to be the owners and entitled to all of the benefits and subject to all the liabilities of the said George W. Fales and his assignee under the terms of said contract.” '

From this decree defendant Fales has appealed.

It was the claim of complainant that Mr. Beckwith was interested as a stockholder in and manager of the Keeley Institute Company of West Michigan, doing business at Grand Rapids, and a like institution in Detroit. The rest of his claim cannot be better stated-than by quoting the substance of the testimony of Mr. Beckwith as follows:

“ I took charge of the business on May 6, 1902, at Detroit, at the corner of Cass street-and Lafayette avenue, and continued it until it was closed November 8th of the same year. While operating the Detroit institute I happened to go in James W. Fales’ place of business to buy some office supplies, and met Mr. Fales himself. * * *
“ Mr. Fales waited upon me, and after making the purchases I asked that they be sent up to the Keeley Institute, giving him the address. Mr. Fales wanted to know if I was connected with the institute, and I told him I was running it. He stated: That he had formerly been in the Keeley business. He was one of the original purchasers of the Keeley rights in the State of Michigan, and that he was one of the parties that opened the first institute in Michigan at Northville, and that he was actively connected with the business for several months at that place, until some of the other parties interested wanted to move from there. Their intentions were of going to Ypsilanti. That he did not approve of that, and he, in fact, wanted to remain where they were. He said that Mr. Waring was also of the same opinion; but, however, the-institute was moved from Northville to Ypsilanti, and that he and Mr. Waring, when the institute was moved to. Ypsilanti, opened institutes at other points, Mr. Waring at Alma, and he at Benton Harbor. He said that he operated the Benton Harbor institute for a year or two, and it did not pay, and that the parties who had purchased an interest at Ypsilanti became dissatisfied and brought suit against himself, Mr. Radford, and Mr. McVittie, the parties that were the owners of the Keeley franchise in the State of Michigan, and that he closed up the institute at Benton Harbor, and as the business at Ypsilanti was in a bad way [608]*608or in debt, or something of that sort, that they entered into an agreement with Mr. Waring, selling out to him all their rights in the franchise for the State, and Mr. Waring closed his institute at Alma and moved the Keeley business for the State of Michigan to Detroit, that he did not believe that Mr. Waring had ever paid for it, and that the facts were that he and Mr. Radford and Mr. McVittie were the sole owners at that time of the franchise for the State of Michigan. And he questioned me in regard te how I was operating. I told him that I had a lease from Mr. Waring. That Mr. Waring had represented to me that he was the absolute owner of the franchise for the State of Michigan.
Q. Did you tell him the terms of the lease ?
.“A. Yes; he asked me what I was paying. I told him I was paying Mr. Waring $30 semi-monthly, payáble on the 1st and 15th of each month and also paying him a royalty of $2.50 per month on every patient treated for the first year. After the first year it was to be $5. * * *
‘ ‘ The statement Mr. Fales made was he did not believe my lease was worth anything, that he was positive that Mr. Waring never had carried out the terms of this contract with himself, Mr. McVittie, and Mr. Radford, and although he did not know just how the matter stood, but that was his belief. I asked him why he could not give me definite information in regard to it, and he said this deal made with Mr. Waring was consummated several years before that — I think he gave me the year 1894 — and that the transaction was carried on by Mr. Radford, and that Mr. Radford had all the papers, and his memory was very poor in the matter; that he could not tell just what there was to it; but that Mr.

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

Related

Murray v. Keeley Institute
157 N.W. 87 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1916)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
106 N.W. 282, 142 Mich. 605, 1906 Mich. LEXIS 567, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/murray-v-fales-mich-1906.