Gleason & Bailey Manuf'g Co. v. Hoffman
| Decision Date | 01 November 1897 |
| Citation | 48 N.E. 143,168 Ill. 25 |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
| Parties | GLEASON & BAILEY MANUF'G CO. v. HOFFMAN. |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from appellate court, First district.
Suit by John G. Hoffman against the Gleason & Bailey Manufacturing Company. From a judgment of the appellate court (63 Ill. App. 294) affirming a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Affirmed.
Dow, Walker & Walker, for appellant.
Walker, Judd & Hawley, for appellee.
The John G. Hoffman Manufacturing Company, a corporation, was the owner of certain inventions in fan blowers, for which applications for letters patent had been made and were afterwards issued. Being desirous of having the same manufactured and sold, it entered into a contract with appellant, by which it licensed the exclusive right to manufacture the invention, and the prices at which each was to be sold at retail and wholesale and by the manufacture were fixed. By numerous clauses of the contract, the duties and rights of the parties thereto were declared, and times of settlement fixed; and it was provided that, for failure to comply with the agreement, it might be terminated by either party on notice, and on such termination the appellant was to retransfer all patents to the other party to the contract. By the terms of that agreement, the appellee who was the president of the John G. Hoffman Company, and the owner of 98 per cent. of its stock, was to discharge certain duties; and was given certain rights for which his compensation was fixed. Subsequent to the making of that agreement, a contract was entered into between appellant and appellee, by which the latter was to render certain services, for which the former was to render certain considerations. Disagreements having arisen between the parties to these two agreements, the first was terminated according to its terms; and the latter, so far as shown by the record, could be terminated at any time. In January, 1889, the John G. Hoffman Company transferred all its right, title, and interest under the agreement first made to John G. Hoffman, who filed this bill for a discovery, an accounting, and to compel the retranfer of patents, etc. An answer and replication were filed, and the cause was referred to a master to take proof, and report the same to the court, with his opinion on the law and the evidence. The contention of the appellant was that there was no privity between the complainant and the respondent, and that there was no ground of equitable jurisdiction; and the amount claimed for personal services by the complainant had no relation to the original contract, nor was it averred in the bill, and the amount found by the master was erroneous. The master reported in favor of complainant for $15,531.61, and allowed respondent a credit for $6,760.27, and recommended a decree in favor of complainant for $8,771.34, and that respondent reassign the letters patent to complainant. To this report exceptions were filed before the master, which were overruled, ruled, and the exceptions were filed in court to the master's report, when they were again overruled.
It is contended that the bill does not state a cause of which equity has jurisdiction. To the bill the respondent filed a general demurrer, which was overruled, whereupon the respondent answered. By answering after a general demurrer is overruled, the right to assign error in overruling the demurrer is waived. Brill v. Stiles, 35 Ill. 305;Gordon v. Reynolds, 114 Ill. 118, 28 N. E. 455;Bauerle v. Long, 165 Ill. 340, 46 N. E. 227. But, aside from that waiver of the right to assign error in overruling the demurrer to the bill, a jurisdiction in equity exists where there are mutual accounts between the complainant and the respondent, and also where the accounts are all on one side; but there are circumstances of great complication or difficulties in the way of adequate relief at law, or where a fiduciary relation exists and a duty rests upon the respondent to render an account. In all such cases there is a jurisdiction in equity, but, in addition to this, in this bill the complainant seeks to have a retransfer of certain letters patent, which is a matter peculiarly...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
The State ex rel. Barker v. Chicago & Alton Railroad Co.
...4 Humph. (Tenn.) 183; Lumber Co. v. Strother, 136 F. 295; Rippe v. Stodgill, 61 Wis. 38; Blodgett v. Foster, 114 Mich. 688; Mfg. Co. v. Hoffman, 168 Ill. 25; State v. Churchill, 48 Ark. 426; Warren Holbrook, 95 Mich. 185; Lightfoot v. Davis, 198 N.Y. 961; State v. Railroad, 246 Ill. 188; Lu......
-
Eddy v. Eddy
...defects of which advantage could be taken on the final hearing. Gordon v. Reynolds, 114 Ill. 118, 28 N. E. 455;Gleason & Bailey Mfg. Co. v. Hoffman, 168 Ill. 25, 48 N. E. 143;Bauerle v. Long, 165 Ill. 340, 46 N. E. 227;Baumgartner v. Bradt, 207 Ill. 345, 69 N. E. 912. There was no defect of......
-
Richardson v. First Nat. Life Ins. Co.
...are on but one side, a discovery being sought which is material to the relief prayed. And again in the case of Gleason & Bailey Manf. Co. v. Hoffman, 168 Ill. 25, 48 N.E. 143, it was held that jurisdiction in equity exists where there are mutual accounts between the parties, or where the ac......
-
Glos v. Hanford
...error the ruling upon the demurrer.’ Baumgartner v. Bradt, 207 Ill. 345, 69 N. E. 912, and cases there cited. In Gleason & Bailey Mfg. Co. v. Hoffman, 168 Ill. 25, 48 N. E. 143, we said: ‘By answering after a general demurrer is overruled, the right to assign error in overruling the demurre......