Lamar v. Russell
| Decision Date | 31 October 1886 |
| Citation | 77 Ga. 307 |
| Parties | Lamar, Rankin & Lamar. vs. Russell. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
[Jackson, C. J., did not preside in this case, on account of providential cause.]
Pleadings. Actions. Partnership. Amendment. Before Judge Harris. City Court of Macon. March Term,. 1886.
Reported in the decision.
Gustin & Hall, for plaintiffs in error.
John P. Ross, by brief, for defendant.
Russell brought suit against Lamar, Rankin & Lamar, and alleged in his declaration that the defendants, as partners, were engaged in the sale of drugs and medicines and in the drug business, in the city of Macon, and were indebted to him in the sum of $130.12, with interest; that plaintiff was, on or about the 1st of August, 1883, employed by Lamar, Rankin & Lamar to clerk in their drug-store in Macon, in which position he remained during the year 1881, and until about March, 1885; that during this time, and while so employed, he was the owner and proprietor of a formula for making a preparation which he called " axle-grease, " a compound gotten up by him and known and sold as " Russell's axle-grease;" that after making and selling this preparation for some time, and it being in some degree popular and sought after, Henry J. Lamar, Jr., one of the firm of said Lamar, Rankin & Lamar, voluntarily told him that he would allow him a liberal royalty on the sale of said Russell's axle-grease; whereupon he compounded and sold said axle-grease solely from the drug-store of said Lamar, Rankin & Lamar, giving them the full benefit of all the profits from the sale of said. " medicine;" and while said Lamar, Rankin & Lamar did not advertise said axle-grease, petitioner, under the promise of a royalty', pushed the preparation as much as he could, and sold a quantity of the same, to-wit, fifteen and two-thirds dozen bottles, small, and twenty-six and five-twelfths dozen bottles, large. Petitioner showed that at the time of the agreement between himself and said Lamar, Rankin & Lamar, there was no amount, fixed or specified as to what petitioner's royalty should be; that petitioner was reasonably entitled to half of the net profitson the sale of said axle-grease, as a moderate and fair royalty, " his knowledge and skill being pitted against simply the cost of the preparation."
At the hearing of the case, the declaration was demurred to, upon the ground that it set forth no cause of action. Pending said demurrer, the following amendment was made, viz., by erasing...
To continue reading
Request your trial