Wessel v. Wessel Manufacturing Company
| Decision Date | 06 November 1908 |
| Docket Number | 15,688 - (12) |
| Citation | 118 N.W. 157,106 Minn. 66 |
| Parties | KARL WESSEL v. WESSEL MANUFACTURING COMPANY |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Action in the district court for Ramsey county to recover $16,396.70 for breach of contract. Subdivision 13 of the contract provided that in case of delay on defendant's part in equipping the plant for manufacturing, the period of such delay shall be calculated as part of the period for which an option to purchase the invention was given. Subdivision 21 provided that in case defendant should not exercise the option to purchase, the trustees named to hold the patent rights were to assign them to the plaintiff or to the person named by him. From an order, Olin B. Lewis, J., overruling defendant's demurrer to so much of the complaint as is alleged for the fourth cause of action, it appealed. Affirmed.
Complaint -- Demurrer.
Complaint in an action to recover damages for an alleged breach of contract, held to state a cause of action for at least nominal damages, and an order overruling a general demurrer thereto is affirmed.
Durment & Moore, Arthur Christofferson, and J. A. A. Burnquist, for appellant.
Stiles W. Burr, for respondent.
Appeal from an order overruling defendant's general demurrer to plaintiff's fourth cause of action. It appears from the complaint that, some time prior to the transaction here involved, plaintiff had invented a mechanical device for spinning grass twine for use in the manufacture of grass matting. No patent had been issued to him, but application therefor had been made to the Patent Office of the federal government and it was expected to be issued in the due course of procedure. He had constructed two of his machines, which were ready for operation, and by the terms of the contract here in litigation he agreed to construct three other machines for use by defendant in the performance of its part of the contract alleged to have been violated.
The complaint, fairly construed, alleges in substance and effect after setting out the foregoing facts, that in consideration of defendant's agreement to construct and equip a plant for the manufacture of grass twine matting, and to install therein and operate and test for the period of one year plaintiff's said machines, with a view to determining whether they were of practical utility, and other considerations not necessary to mention here, as they concern other causes of action set up in the complaint, plaintiff gave defendant an option to purchase the patent right, if the machine was found useful at the end of the trial period. Defendant agreed to pay therefor the consideration stated in the contract, and to construct and equip the plant without unreasonable delay. The complaint further alleges that plaintiff fully performed his part of the contract constructed and tendered to defendant the machines for use in the plant, but that some time after the contract was entered into defendant repudiated it and notified plaintiff that it would no longer recognize the same or be bound thereby, and it would not perform or comply with the...
To continue reading
Request your trial