Brief for appellees motion picture patents company and Edison manufacturing company (1913)

Record Details:

Title:
Brief for appellees motion picture patents company and Edison manufacturing company
Date:
1913
Publisher:
New York : The Evening Post Job Printing Office
Volume:
Brief for appellees motion picture patents company and Edison manufacturing company
Leaf #:
00039
Language:
English
Collection:
Books and Government & Law
Format:
Books
Contributor:
Media History Digital Library
Sponsor:
{"Media History Digital Library","Richard Koszarski",Domitor}
Coordinator:
Media History Digital Library
Description:
Date Added:
November 16, 2023
Something wrong or inaccurate about this page? Let us Know!

Thanks for helping us continually improve the quality of the Lantern search engine for all of our users! We have millions of scanned pages, so user reports are incredibly helpful for us to identify places where we can improve and update the metadata.

Please describe the issue below, and click "Submit" to send your comments to our team! If you'd prefer, you can also send us an email to mhdl@commarts.wisc.edu with your comments.




We use Optical Character Recognition (OCR) during our scanning and processing workflow to make the content of each page searchable. You can view the automatically generated text below as well as copy and paste individual pieces of text to quote in your own work.

Text recognition is never 100% accurate. Many parts of the scanned page may not be reflected in the OCR text output, including: images, page layout, certain fonts or handwriting.

35 At the outside, therefore, appellant's first point could establish nothing more than an immaterial variance. Sackett V. Hillhouse, 5 Day (Conn.), 55 L, at 555. Boots V. Boring Junction, &c., Co., 92 Pac, 811, at 818. Zane v. Zane, 6 Munf. (Va.), 406, at 416. Etdridge v. Turner, 11 Ala., 1049, at 1056. Keaton v. Miller, 38 Miss., 630. Appellant has assigned no such error, ami it carefully failed to call attention to anything of the sort at the appropriate moment, i. e., when the evidence was being taken. The authorities establish that the Court will APPLY this maxim OF "CLEAN HANDS" ON ITS OWN INITIATIVE. Bisphaiii's Principles of Equity, Section 42; Memphis Keeley Institute vs. Leslie E. Keeley Co., 155 Federal, 964; Teleoli vs. Nardolillo, 23 R. I.. h7; Pacific Live Stock Co vs. Gentry, 38 Oregon, 275; Dunham vs. Preshy, 120 Mass., 285; Tanny vs. Lavalle, 92 111., 263, 265, 270; Jenkins vs. Greenbaum, 95 III., 11. And see Primau vs. Granfield, 193 Federal, 911 {2nd Cel., 1911), ■ where Judge Noyes said: " When fraud or illegality is disclosed in a case, public policy requiies a court to lefuse its aid, irrespective of the state of the pleadings and regardless of the fact that with fraud and illegality absent the plaintiff might appear entitled to relief." While many of the cases cited above deal with illegal contracts, there is no intimation that the Court would not take the same action where the contract was alfected with fraud, but was not illegal; indeed, in the cases cited the