Maull v. Campbell
| Citation | 68 So. 760,69 Fla. 541 |
| Parties | MAULL v. CAMPBELL. |
| Decision Date | 28 April 1915 |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Florida |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Duval County; Daniel A. Simmons, Judge.
Suit by J. P. Campbell against E. N. Maull. From an order overruling a general demurrer to the complaint, defendant appeals. Affirmed.
Syllabus by the Court
Even though the allegations of a bill be somewhat elusive in setting up matters of fraud, the chancellor may be justified in overruling a demurrer thereto in order to get the facts more fully developed.
A bill may state an equity by alleging a breach of an exclusive right to sell certain machinery, or the commission of a fraud upon prospective buyers of the complainant by inducing them to think the defendant was selling that machinery.
COUNSEL F. M. Durrance and Bisbee & Bedell, and of Jacksonville, for appellant.
Marks Marks & Holt, of Jacksonville, for appellee.
This being an appeal from an order overruling a general demurrer to a bill of complaint, we need consider only if the bill states any cause for equitable relief.
It appears that in April, 1912, Maull was the owner of patents for the manufacture of fruit-packing equipment and machinery he then conveyed unto Campbell----
'the sole and exclusive right and license to use each and every any and all of the patents, patented inventions, unpatented inventions, ideas and processes in any wise pertaining to touching upon and affecting the manufacture, sale or use of 'fruit packing equipment and machinery' of the party of the second part [Maull], during the term of five years,' etc.
The eighth section of the contract reads:
'That the said party of the second part shall nor at any time during the life of this agreement or of any extensions or renewal thereof, use or otherwise operate any of the said patents, inventions, ideas or processes now existing and owned by the party of the second part or such as may be hereafter acquired, or any future improvement thereof, or grant any license to any other person to use the same or any such improvement.'
There were provisions in the contract for the employment of Maull by Campbell on a sliding scale of salary, and Campbell engaged to use the name 'Maull' in connection with the machinery.
The bill alleges that Campbell spent much money in advertising these machines and in working up an exclusive trade in them. At Maull's request and on the...
To continue reading
Request your trial