Lueddecke v. Chevrolet Motor Co.

Decision Date16 March 1934
Docket NumberNo. 9811.,9811.
PartiesLUEDDECKE v. CHEVROLET MOTOR CO. et al.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit

James A. Finch, Jr., of Cape Girardeau, Mo. (James A. Finch, of Cape Girardeau, Mo., and Floyd E. Jacobs, M. J. Henderson, and Thomas E. Deacy, all of Kansas City, Mo., on the brief), for appellant.

David A. Murphy, of Kansas City, Mo. (John T. Harding and R. Carter Tucker, both of Kansas City, Mo., on the brief), for appellees.

Before GARDNER and WOODROUGH, Circuit Judges, and MARTINEAU, District Judge.

WOODROUGH, Circuit Judge.

Mr. H. W. Lueddecke brought this action at law, as plaintiff, against Chevrolet Motor Company and other corporations (all referred to herein as companies), as defendants, to recover on an alleged implied contract on the part of the defendant companies to pay plaintiff the reasonable value of an idea and suggestion which he alleges he furnished to them. Demurrers were interposed to the petition and were sustained Plaintiff having declined to plead further, the case was dismissed, and the plaintiff appeals.

The petition alleges that the plaintiff sent the following letter to the companies:

"Dear Sirs: As the proud owner of a Chevrolet Sedan, and also with the knowledge of a man who knows automobiles, I am asking you a few questions and then making you a proposition.

"Do you know that a very serious error has been made in the general location of several of the individual units or mechanisms of the Chevrolet car? Do you also know that within another year or so this very error (unless corrected) will reduce Chevrolet sales by possibly a million or even several million dollars? And again, while I, as well as many others, have had and will still have this error of your designers overcome at considerable expense, it will within a short space of time possibly cause some other low-priced car to become more popular than the Chevrolet.

"While many car owners have gone to the trouble of correcting this defect, I have found neither an owner nor a mechanic who was able to discover the cause of the defect. And. unless corrected, the defect will mean considerable annual expense to the owner of the car, for which there is really no excuse at all.

"The cost of overcoming this defect in a car should not be over 20¢ to 30¢ to you as you build the car if you take the easiest and shortest way out of the difficulty. To the owner who has purchased his car the cost will vary from $3.00 to $7.00 depending on where he lives, in city or country.

"The best way out of the difficulty, however, would necessitate a change of design as suggested above, and that can be done without great expense or without sacrificing the essential features of the design of the car.

"Now, I shall not ask you for a one-eighth royalty on $500,000 or $1,000,000 of sales, but I would like to have you make me an offer stating what such information would be worth to you — or how much you could offer and would pay for the same. Upon receipt of your reply, if your offer is satisfactory, I will give you complete information of the above mentioned changes for the Chevrolet car.

"An early reply will be appreciated. "Yours truly,"

That reply was made as follows:

"Dear Sir: Your letter of June 27, to the Chevrolet Motor Company, regarding your suggestion to change the design of Chevrolet cars, has been forwarded to the New Devices Committee for attention.

"We have this Committee in General Motors, composed of some of our most important executives and engineers, to review all new inventions submitted direct to the Corporation or through any of its divisions or executives.

"It is against the policy of the Corporation to make any agreement for inventions until we know exactly what they are and have sufficient information to place them before the New Devices Committee for consideration.

"If you care to send us drawings and a description of your ideas, the Committee will be very glad to examine them and let you know whether or not General Motors is interested.

"We always insist, however, that everything submitted to us be protected in some way and would suggest, if you have not applied for patents, that you establish legal evidence of ownership and priority of your idea by having your original drawing signed, dated and witnessed by two or more competent persons or notarized.

"We assure you that, if we find the design of sufficient interest to warrant further investigation, some mutually satisfactory agreement will be made.

"Yours very truly "New Devices Committee."

That plaintiff then answered:

"Dear Sirs: I have Mr. T. O. Richards' reply (dated July 15th) to my letter of June 27th. Referring to my previous letter you will find that I said that your designers of the Chevrolet car had made a very serious blunder in the location of several of the individual units of the car. I also stated that many car owners have gone to the trouble of correcting the defect, either temporarily or permanently, at considerable expense to themselves. But I have never found either a mechanic or a car owner who knew the cause of the trouble drivers were having with their cars. Because of this fact I thought it expedient and profitable to take the matter up directly with your company.

"Now the matter that I have to present is this: You will find that the body of all Chevrolet cars that have been driven 200 miles or more is from one inch to three inches lower on the left side of the driver than on his right side. Because of this the left rear fender especially, in driving over fairly rough or wavy streets or in rounding corners to the right, will quite often strike against the tires. This has been the cause of tearing up tires or of suddenly slowing down the car — thereby making accidents likely. The experience is also annoying to the driver and occupants of the car.

"Many drivers seem to think that the springs on the left side were naturally weak and not so good; others seem to think that they struck a bad place in the road and that the springs lost their elasticity as a result. But the fact of the case is that the car is not properly balanced — right side against left side. On the left side you have the steering mechanism, the starter, the generator, and the storage battery. This, together with a one hundred fifty pound (150#) driver, when one drives by himself, throws approximately three hundred pounds (300#) more weight on the left side than on the right side of the car.

"After I had driven my car about 2,800 miles the body was exactly two and three-quarters inches lower on the left side than on the right side. In order to level the body of the car I had an extra spring leaf put into both the front and rear springs on the left side, and that straightened the body up perfectly. My plan is that you either put in this extra spring leaf in both front and rear springs on the left side of the car when you build the car, or else you should change the location of some of the individual units — shifting those units which could be most conveniently moved to the right side of the car or motor. It is my idea that the battery should be moved from the left side to the right side. This would take about fifty pounds from the heavy side and add it to the light side. Then either or both the starter and generator should be moved to the right side of the motor — they would just about balance the weight of the steering unit and the usual excess weight of the driver over his front seat mate.

"The facts given above cannot be denied, and the remedy is simple and clear. I hope you will find them of profit to your firm. I would appreciate a reply at your earliest convenience.

"Respectfully submitted."

To which the New Devices Committee replied:

"Dear Sir: This will acknowledge your letter of July 22 regarding a system for balancing the weight of cars.

"The Committee, at its last meeting, thoroly discussed your suggestion but decided, unfortunately, that it would not be advisable to redesign our springs in this manner at the present time. We cannot therefore, see our way clear to go into the matter with you further.

"We appreciate your interest in General Motors and regret that we cannot reply to you more favorably.

"Yours very truly "New Devices Committee."

It is then alleged in the petition that the plaintiff, by and through these letters, did sell and convey to the defendants ideas as to how to balance a Chevrolet car so that the fenders would not strike the wheels, and more particularly to balance the car so that the weight would be more evenly divided on both sides, and that he...

To continue reading

Request your trial
37 cases
  • Monolith Portland Midwest Co. v. Kaiser Alum. & Chem. Corp.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of California
    • January 6, 1967
    ...prior to the time of their revelation." American Potato Dryers v. Peters, 184 F.2d 165, 172 (4th Cir., 1950). Lueddecke v. Chevrolet Motor Co., 70 F. 2d 345 (8th Cir., 1934). In the latter case, the Court determined that if there was no novelty in plaintiff's suggested idea, it was one "to ......
  • United States v. Reed
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York
    • January 24, 1985
    ...203 F.2d 369, 376-77 (7th Cir.1953); Telechron, Inc. v. Parissi, 197 F.2d 757, 761 (2d Cir.1952). 40 See also Lueddecke v. Chevrolet Motor Co., 70 F.2d 345, 348-49 (8th Cir.1934); Vantage Point, Inc. v. Parker Bros. Inc., 529 F.Supp. 1204, 1217 (E.D.N.Y.1981), aff'd mem., 697 F.2d 301 (2d C......
  • Warwick v. De Mayo
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • September 13, 1948
    ...125 F.2d 446. (4) Plaintiff had no trade secret or common law rights as an inventor. 4 Restatement of Law of Torts, p. 5; Lueddecke v. Chevrolet Motor Co., 70 F.2d 345; 35, Sec. 48, U.S.C.A. (5) Plaintiff's claim is barred by statute of limitations. Sec. 1014, R.S. 1939. (6) Plaintiff's fra......
  • Schonwald v. F. Burkart Mfg. Co.
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • April 21, 1947
    ... ... Brunner v. Stix, Baer & Fuller ... Co., 352 Mo. 1225, 181 S.W.2d 643; Moore v. Ford ... Motor Co., 43 F.2d 685; Lueddecke v. Chevrolet Motor ... Co., 70 F.2d 345; Commissioner v ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT