Lea v. Vasco Products, 7880.
| Decision Date | 11 February 1936 |
| Docket Number | No. 7880.,7880. |
| Parties | LEA et al. v. VASCO PRODUCTS, Inc. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit |
Maynard Ramsey and Edwin R. Dickenson, both of Tampa, Fla., for appellants.
Wm. M. Taliaferro and W. A. Carter, both of Tampa, Fla., for appellee.
Before SIBLEY, HUTCHESON, and WALKER, Circuit Judges.
Appellants are owners of a secret formula for making hair tonic, a product known as Lea's Never-Failing Hair Tonic, which prior to April 20, 1926, they had been manufacturing. On that date they leased and let to appellee for ninety-nine years the sole and exclusive right, for the United States and all the world, to sell and distribute that product. The contract made provision for the sale of different quantities in different periods. It provided for fixed royalties, for minimum quantities, and for $1 a gallon on all gallonage sold above the minimum.
On April 21, 1935, appellants gave notice that the contract was terminated under section 11 of the contract, providing that "If the party of the second part * * * shall fail to order, sell and distribute at least twelve hundred and fifty (1250) gallons during the fifth period of this agreement and annually thereafter * * * this agreement shall become and shall thereafter be null and void."
On June 21, 1935, appellee brought its bill. It set out the contract, alleged its good-faith performance of it through a long period of years, the expenditures it had made to make the venture successful for both parties to it, and that appellants had wrongfully attempted to cancel the contract. It prayed that appellants be compelled to abide and perform their contract, and be enjoined, pendente lite and upon final hearing, from themselves selling the product or interfering with appellee in its sale of it. On July 11, upon the sworn bill and affidavit filed in support of it, the District Judge, denying appellants' motion to dismiss the bill, granted an interlocutory injunction, restraining appellants as prayed. This appeal is from the interlocutory order.
Though it was entered on July 11, nothing has been since done by appellants to bring the cause to trial on its merits. No answer has been filed; no testimony taken. The only facts we have are those the bill alleged. An appeal under such circumstances ordinarily brings up nothing for review but whether discretion has been abused. Douglass v. Pan-American Bus Lines (C.C.A.) 81 F.(2d) 222; Butler v. Schulte (C.C.A.) 67...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Dahlberg Bros., Inc. v. Ford Motor Co., 39638
...it could be continued under its existing terms until litigation has determined the issue of just cause of cancellation. Lea v. Vasco Products, 81 F.2d 1011 (5th Cir.1936).' Presumably, the trial court considered that parties to a franchise arrangement who were able to deal harmoniously for ......
-
Green v. Green
...presented for decision is whether the District Judge abused his discretion in granting an interlocutory injunction. Lea v. Vasco Products, 5 Cir., 81 F.2d 1011. Of course, in deciding that question we may consider whether the court was without In Eighth Regional War Labor Board v. Humble Oi......
-
Tanner Motor Livery, Ltd. v. Avis, Inc.
...an Avis licensee, operating an extensive business from which both Tanner and Avis were realizing profits. (See Lea v. Vasco Products, Inc., 5 Cir., 1936, 81 F.2d 1011; Maison Dorin Société Anonyme v. Arnold, 2 Cir., 1924, 296 F. 387). Tanner was endeavoring to continue to so operate. Avis s......
-
Miami Beach Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n v. Callander
...and Mechanical College v. Ludley, 5 Cir., 252 F.2d 372; Mansfield Hardwood Lumber Co. v. Johnson, 5 Cir., 242 F.2d 45; Lea v. Vasco Products, Inc., 5 Cir., 81 F.2d 1011. Furthermore since the plaintiffs admit noncompliance with Article 2 of the by-laws and acknowledge that they have not ten......