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 #:
00066
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.

62 temberlSth, 1908, was not mutual, so far as the condition and remedy thereon was concerned, and that this court, as a court of equity will not consent to a decree of specific performance in favor of one party as against the other. The rule is laid down as follows: In Amer. & Eng. Enc. of Law, Vol, 26, page 28, is the following: " It has been said that a contract in order to be specifically enforceable in equity should be mutual and binding on both parties alike, as to obligation and remedy. So it has been intimated that a negative covenant in a contract of hiring will not be enforced, where the Court had the power to not enforce an affirmative covenant." In Shenandoah Valley, etc., vs. Dunlop, 86 Va., 346, it was said: " It is a fundamental rule in equity that a contract to be specifically enforced must in general be mutual in its obligation and in its remedy^ and it must be mutual ab initio." To same effect see: Ross vs. U. P. Ry. Co., Fed. Cases, 12080; Marble Co. vs. Ripley, 10 Wall., 339, 359; Pullman vs. T. & P. R. Co., 11 Fed., 625, 630; Richmond vs. Dubuque R. Co., 33 la., 422; Chadwick vs. Chadwick, 121 Ala., 580; Alworth vs. Seymour, 42 Minn., 526, 528; Welty vs. Jacobs, 171 111., 624; Louisville etc., R. Co. vs. Bodenschatz, 141 Ind., 251; Wood vs. Dickey, 90 Va., 160, 163; Karrick vs. Hannaman, 168 U. S., 328, 335, Martin vs. Pratt, 5 St. Rept., 284; Taussig vs. Corbin, 142 Fed., 660, 666; Federal Oil Co. vs. Western Oil Co., 121 Fed., 6T4; Nevada, etc., Co. vs. National, etc., Co., 96 Fed., 133, 145.