Sadtler v. Home Pattern Co.

• Decision Date: 26 January 1931
• Docket Number: 255
• Citation: 153 A. 769,302 Pa. 527
• Parties: Sadtler v. Home Pattern Co., Appellant
• Court: Pennsylvania Supreme Court

153 A. 769

302 Pa. 527

Sadtler v. Home Pattern Co., Appellant

No. 255

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

January 26, 1931

Argued December 4, 1930

Appeal, No. 255, Jan. T., 1930, by defendant, from decree of C.P. No. 5, Phila. Co., Sept. T., 1928, No. 12, dismissing exceptions to auditor's report, in case of Helena S Sadtler v. The Home Pattern Co., Inc. Affirmed.

Foreign attachment.

The opinion of the Supreme Court states the facts.

Motion for judgment and accounting. The case was referred to Otto Heiligman, Esq., as auditor. Exceptions to auditor's report were dismissed in an opinion by MARTIN, P.J. Defendant appealed.

Error assigned, inter alia, was decree, quoting record.

The judgment of the court below is affirmed.

W James MacIntosh, with him Howard H. Rapp, for appellant.

Robert H. Agnew, with him John Hemphill, of Hemphill & Brewster, for appellee.

Before FRAZER, C.J., WALLING, SIMPSON, KEPHART, SADLER, SCHAFFER and MAXEY, JJ.

OPINION

MR. JUSTICE MAXEY:

This is an appeal from the judgment of the Court of Common Pleas No 5 of the County of Philadelphia awarding a decree of distribution. The appellee was the owner of certain letters patent from the United States Government granting her the right to manufacture, use and sell certain dress patterns. Subsequently, by agreement in writing between the appellant and the appellee, the appellant was granted the sole and exclusive right to manufacture, use and sell the patterns, and also the further right to purchase certain booklets compiled by the appellee, which booklet was used to promote the sale of the patterns. By the terms of the contract, appellant was to pay to the appellee a royalty of ten cents on gross sales received by it from the sales of the patterns and a royalty of two and one-half cents upon each booklet sold by the appellant. The contract was made February 20, 1920, and the appellant thereupon began the manufacture and sale of the patterns and booklets. At the time of the execution of this contract, the appellant manufactured other dress patterns which were unrelated to the patterns constituting the subject of this contract. The appellant kept no accurate account of the patterns it sold under the contract, but in its bookkeeping combined the sales of all its patterns, including those sold under the contract in question and those sold under other unrelated contracts. For a considerable period, the appellant paid the appellee certain payments...