Larx Co. v. Nicol, 34235.
Decision Date | 11 October 1946 |
Docket Number | No. 34235.,34235. |
Citation | 28 N.W.2d 705,224 Minn. 1 |
Parties | LARX CO., Inc. v. NICOL et al. |
Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Appeal from District Court, Ramsey County; Gustavus Loevinger, Judge.
Action by Larx Company, Inc., against Clinton C. Nicol and others for a declaratory judgment that a certain contract between plaintiff's assignor and Clinton C. Nicol, together with written assignments of a certain trade-mark and copyright pledged as security, are invalid and unenforceable. From a judgment holding that the contract and assignments were valid and enforceable, the plaintiff appeals.
Judgment affirmed.
Kingman, Cross, Morley, Cant & Taylor, of Minneapolis, for appellant.
Oppenheimer, Hodgson, Brown, Donnelly & Baer, of St. Paul, for respondents.
Action for a declaratory judgment to have a certain written contract dated December 10, 1935, between Clinton C. Nicol and Barnes-Noble Company, Inc., a corporation, together with written assignments of a certain trademark and copyright pledged as security for said contract, adjudged invalid and unenforceable.
Plaintiff is the assignee of all the right, title, and interest of the Barnes-Noble Company in and to said contract, trademark, and copyright and holds the same subject to Barnes-Noble Company's obligations therein.
On June 21, 1945, the trial court made findings, conclusions, and order for judgment in favor of defendants, in effect holding said contract and assignments valid and enforceable. A memorandum made by the court on June 12, 1945, was incorporated in the findings and conclusions and made a part thereof. On December 20, 1945, the court denied plaintiff's motion for amended findings and conclusions or for a new trial. From the judgment subsequently entered, this appeal is taken.
The material portions of the contract under attack provide:
Accompanying said contract were two written assignments, one for the trademark and one for the copyright referred to. They both provided in substance that in consideration of the sum of one dollar and other good and valuable considerations the Barnes-Noble Company sold, assigned, and transferred unto the said Clinton C. Nicol its entire right, title, and interest in and to said trademark and copyright and the registration numbers thereof, together with the good will of the business in connection with which they were used. Subsequent to the execution thereof, Nicol notified the Barnes-Noble Company by letter that his revenue from the December 10, 1935, contract was thereby assigned to his wife, the defendant Leila M. Nicol, and thereafter all checks under said agreement were delivered to her.
On January 14, 1945, by written agreement, Curtiss G. Noble, who with his wife then owned all but two shares of the stock of the Barnes-Noble Company, for $30,171.13 sold and assigned to plaintiff the aforesaid trademark and copyright; the good will of the business conducted by the Barnes-Noble Company; the right to use the name Barnes-Noble Company for a limited time; the factory improvements, furniture, and fixtures owned by said company; and also the contract between the Barnes-Noble Company and Clinton C. Nicol dated December 10, 1935. Said agreement further provided:
Shortly after the execution of the aforesaid sale and assignment to plaintiff, the latter instituted this action.
Plaintiff contends that the trial court erred in finding the contract and assignments of December 10, 1935, valid, and he asserts that all of the same are invalid or unenforceable for the following reasons: (1) That under the law of Illinois, where the contract was made, Nicol's agreement not to compete for an unlimited time in an unlimited space was in unlawful restraint of trade and rendered the contract invalid; (2) that said contract is unsupported by legal consideration and is vague, indefinite as to duration, and unconscionable; (3) that the trademark and copyright were illegally assigned because their assignment was unaccompanied by an actual transfer of the business and good will with which they were associated; (4) that the assignment of the monthly payments from Nicol to his wife constituted a transfer of the trademark and copyright in violation of the contract and accordingly terminated it.
During the year 1931, Clinton C. Nicol developed a formula for a cleansing or scouring compound and commenced the manufacture and sale thereof in Minneapolis in 1932 under the name "Nicol Cleanser." The ingredients of the compound and their proportions were unknown to anyone except him, although the formula, for obvious reasons, was not registered in the United States patent office. He acted as both manufacturer and salesman in his business and by 1933 was selling the compound in substantial quantities.
In 1933, the Barnes-Noble Company was incorporated in Minnesota and commenced selling a compound similar to Nicol's. It found, however, that Nicol's compound had greater sales possibilities, and during the year 1933 it entered into negotiations with him for the use of his formula. An oral agreement was reached under which Nicol turned over and disclosed to the corporation his formula and business, for which the corporation agreed that it would pay him $500; assign him one-fourth of its outstanding stock after an additional $10,000 had been invested in the corporation by one of its officers; and place him in charge of its manufacturing plant on a salary commencing at $150 per month, "to be increased as the company went along."
Thereafter the corporation commenced the manufacture and sale of the cleansing compound made pursuant to Nicol's formula. It purchased from some other concern the right to use a trademark known as "Brite-Ize" and a copyrighted label, and manufactured and sold the compound under such trademark and label. It maintained its plant and offices in Minneapolis until February 1935, at which time it moved to Ottawa, Illinois, where it continued in business. In 1933 its gross sales were $28,000. It continued in business until the sale to plaintiff made on January 14, 1945. By 1943 its sales had increased to $119,000, and its sales activities then extended into 15 states. Its subsequent sales were not disclosed.
Nicol continued with the corporation in Illinois until December 10, 1935, the date of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Larx Co. v. Nicol
... 28 N.W.2d 705 224 Minn. 1, 71 U.S.P.Q. 115, 71 U.S.P.Q. 115 LARX CO., Inc. v. NICOL et al. No. 34235. Supreme Court of Minnesota October 11, 1946 ... On ... Rehearing Aug. 22, 1947 ... [28 N.W.2d 706] ... Syllabus ... by the Court ... 1 ... The law of the place of contracting determines the validity ... and effect of a promise with ... ...
-
Indianhead Truck Line, Inc. v. Hvidsten Transport, Inc.
...was executed by both parties in North Dakota, the law of that state must be applied in determining its validity, citing Larx Co. Inc. v. Nicol, 224 Minn. 1, 28 N.W.2d 705; Heflebower v. Sand (D. Minn.) 71 F.Supp. 607; and North Dakota Century Code, § 9--08--06, which provides in effect that......
-
Heflebower v. Sand, Civil Action No. 1584.
...where the contract was "made." 1 Dunnell, Minn.Dig., (2d Ed. & Supps.) Sec. 1532, and cases collected in note 35; Larx Co., Inc., v. Nicol et al., Minn., 28 N.W. 2d 705, citing Restatement, Conflict of Laws, Sec. 332. See also McCulloch v. Canadian Pacific Ry. Co., D.C.Minn., 53 F.Supp. 534......