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 #:
00061
Language:
English
Collection:
Government & Law and Books
Format:
Books
Contributor:
Media History Digital Library
Sponsor:
{"Media History Digital Library","Richard Koszarski",Domitor}
Coordinator:
Media History Digital Library
Description:
Date Added:
June 06, 2024
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.

57 or fraud will render specific performance impossible." Isaacs vs. Skrainka, 95 Mo., 517, 524. In Cowan vs. Curran, 216 111., 598, 622, it was said, citing cases: "Specific performance will not be decreed unless the agreement has been entered into with perfect fau'ness and without misapprehension, misrepresentation or oppression. See to same effect: SkeeJi vs. Patterson, 180 111., 289, 294; Schmitz vs. Peterson, 113 La., 134, 142; Van Norsdall vs. Smith, 141 Mich., 355, 361; Cleavenger vs. Sturm, 59 W. Va., 658, 663. Smith vs. Countryman, 30 N. Y., 655, 669; Mitliken vs. Thorndike, 103 Mass., 382, 386; Fox vs. Tahel, 66 Conn., 397, 400; Feltz vs. Walker, 49 Conn., 93, 98; Chute vs. Quincy, 156 Mass., 189; Brown vs. Pitcairn, 148 Pa., 387, 392; Friend vs. Lamb, 152 Pa., 529, 533. The rule is the same whether or not there has been partial performance. Amer. & Eng. Enc. of Law, Vol. 14, p. 164; Milliken vs. Thorndike, 103 Mass., 382. A LESS DEGREE OF FRAUD IS REQUIRED TO WARRANT A COURT OF EQUITY TO REFUSE SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE THAN IN DECREEING A RESCISSION— ANY MISREPRESENTATION OR UNFAIRNESS BEING SUFFICIENT TO DEFEAT A BILL FOR SUCH PERFORMANCE. We submit confidently that the fraud of Mr. Lodge was ample and sufficient to warrant a court of equity in decreeing rescission. Even were it otherwise the fraud was of ample magnitude to warrant a court of equity in refusing a decree of specific performance to the party