Starr Cash & Package Car Co. v. Starr

• Decision Date: 13 July 1897
• Citation: 69 Conn. 440,37 A. 1057
• Court: Connecticut Supreme Court
• Parties: STARR CASH & PACKAGE CAR CO. v. STARR.

37 A. 1057

69 Conn. 440

STARR CASH & PACKAGE CAR CO.

v. STARR.

Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut.

July 13, 1897.

Appeal from superior court, New London county; Milton A. Shumway, Judge.

Action by the Starr Cash & Package Car Company against Joseph Starr to compel defendant to transfer to plaintiff a certain patent pursuant to a contract between the parties, for an injunction, and for damages. There was a default entered against defendant, and plaintiff waived its claim for damages. From a judgment in favor of plaintiff, defendant appeals. Affirmed.

The complaint alleged that, the defendant being the business manager of the plaintiff company, it was agreed between them that he should endeavor to buy for its benefit, and with its funds, a certain patent held by one Spring, and procure an assignment of it to himself, to be held subject to its order, and to be transferred to it on demand; that he succeeded in buying it for $300, paying that sum from funds furnished by the plaintiff; that he afterwards refused to transfer it to the plaintiff on demand, and was now threatening and attempting to use and sell the patent for his own benefit; and that the plaintiff was seriously embarrassed and damaged thereby. The defendant made default of appearance, and judgment was entered against him by default at the first term. Three months later a motion by the defendant to open the default was made and denied. Nine months afterwards an entry was made upon the docket that the plaintiff orally withdrew all claim for damages. The defendant then appeared, and moved to erase the cause from the docket on these grounds: A judgment had been rendered at a previous term, which had never been set aside, and the plaintiff had withdrawn all claims for damages. The only remaining claim was for equitable relief, and the matter in demand was less than $500, and no hearing in damages could now be had, and no facts found whereon the judgment rendered at a previous term could be supported. This motion was denied, the court first permitting an amendment of the docket entry above mentioned, at the plaintiff's request, by substituting "waived" for "withdrew." The plaintiff then presented a draft of a judgment file, and asked that it be signed by the court, without any hearing. This was overruled (Robinson, J.) on the objection of the defendant. Three months later he filed a motion that Spring might be cited in as a co-defendant; alleging that he had bought from Spring under a written agreement not to assign over the patent, except upon certain conditions therein expressed, and for the collection by the defendant of certain damages for its infringement, and that the present directors of the plaintiff were the managers of a rival concern, which was liable for such damages to a large amount, and brought this suit for the benefit of said concern, and not for that of the plaintiff, but to defeat the rights of Spring and the defendant. This motion was denied, and the case was then heard just as if a general denial had been pleaded; the plaintiff being required to go forward, and the defendant allowed to introduce evidence in his own behalf. The finding stated these facts: The plaintiff is a corporation organized in 1892, under the laws of West Virginia, for the purpose of making and dealing in cash cars, etc., with its principal place of business in Connecticut. Its subscribed capital was $500 (with the privilege of increasing the capital to $50,000), and $50 only was paid in. It began business in Connecticut, manufacturing under certain patents issued to the defendant, who was its general manager, and was soon threatened with suits for infringement of other patents. Counsel were consulted, and upon due examination, and at an expense of over $300 (paid by the plaintiff), it was found that its use of the Starr patents did constitute such an infringement, and that it was advisable to buy another patent held by one Spring. The allegations in the complaint were true. The defendant, after the purchase, formed the purpose of defrauding the plaintiff, and claims the patent purchased as his own. His refusal to transfer it broke up the plaintiff's business. During the argument of the cause ...