Gemsa v. Dorner
| Decision Date | 08 December 1931 |
| Docket Number | Motion No. 253. |
| Citation | 256 Mich. 195,239 N.W. 332 |
| Parties | GEMSA v. DORNER. |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from Circuit Court, Wayne County; Robert M. Toms, Judge.
Three separate suits by Joseph Gemsa against Hermann Dorner, also known as Hermann I. A. Dorner, in each of which plaintiff filed a petition for discovery. From an order denying the petitions, plaintiff appeals.
Affirmed.
Argued before the Entire Bench.Hobart B. Hoyt, of Detroit (Edward H. Rakow, of Detroit, of counsel), for appellant.
Pliny W. Marsh, of Detroit, for appellee.
Defendant, Hermann Dorner, the owner of certain patents relating to an oil engine, referred to as the Dorner oil engine, employed plaintiff, Joseph Gemsa, to assist him in selling and licensing manufacturers the right to use the patents. He entered into the following written agreement:
‘Detroit, Michigan, December 8, 1925.
‘Mr. Joseph Gemsa, 499 Winona Avenue, Pasadena, California.
‘Dear Sir: In consideration of the services rendered to me in demonstrating the Dorner Oil Engine and bringing me in contact with certain people, I hereby agree that if I succeed in selling or leasing any of my rights and interests of my patents covering said engine, in the United States of America, you are to receive five (5) per cent of all cash and two and a half (2 1/2) per cent interest of all royalties which I may receive.
‘Hanover, Germany, Hindenburg Str. 25.’
Three separate suits were begun for the amounts claimed to be due under this contract. Plaintiff filed a petition for discovery in each case, in which he asked to inspect the books of account, cash books, bank books, and memoranda of defendant and his agents, and all original or copies of agreements entered into by said defendant with the several manufacturers named in the respective cases for the sale or leasing of the rights and interests of defendant's patents relating to the Dorner oil engine. Plaintiff claimed that it was necessary to examine these various documents in order to prepare the bill of particulars demanded by defendant in each case and also to prepare for trial. Defendant withdrew his demand for bill of particulars. Defendant in his answers in the several cases denies that he had entered into any agreement for the sale or licensing of his patents with any manufacturers, with the exception of two of them; that he had disclosed and tendered payment of all moneys due by virtue of licensing agreements with these two manufacturers, with whom he had also entered into a second licensing and optional sales agreement, but had agreed with one of them that he would not disclose the provisions of the contract. Plaintiff appeals from an order of the trial judge denying the petitions which are here considered as if the cases were consolidated.
An order permitting discovery for purpose of preparing for trial will not be granted, unless it is affirmatively shown and proven...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Zoski v. Gaines
...and order, and noticed it for hearing. On February 16, 1933, before trial was commenced and under the authority of Gemsa v. Dorner, 256 Mich. 195, 239 N. W. 332, the court granted the motion and quashed the petition for discovery on the ground that the witnesses were then in court with the ......
-
National Clay Products Co. v. District Court of Cerro Gordo County
... ... the action to produce for inspection and copying his private ... books and papers. See Gemsa v. Dorner, 256 Mich ... 195, 239 N.W. 332; Marion National Bank v. Abell's ... Adm., (Ky.) 88 Ky. 428, 11 S.W. 300 ... The ... ...
-
Nat'l Clay Prods. Co. v. Dist. Court in & for Cerro Gordo Cnty.
...authorize a rule against a stranger to the action to produce for inspection and copying his private books and papers. See Gemsa v. Dorner, 256 Mich. 195, 239 N. W. 332;Marion National Bank v. Abell's Adm'r, 88 Ky. 428, 11 S. W. 300. The order under review by its terms requires the defendant......
-
Spelman v. Addison
...be alleged and appear that the information sought cannot be obtained at the trial of the case by subpoena duces tecum. Gemsa v. Dorner, 256 Mich. 195, 239 N.W. 332. There is no such showing in this case and the trial court was correct in denying discovery for this purpose under Court Rule N......