Witt v. Tourn-A-Grip Co.

• Decision Date: 03 April 1951
• Docket Number: TOURN-A-GRIP,No. 52,52
• Citation: 330 Mich. 151,47 N.W.2d 57
• Parties: WITT v.CO. et al.
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court

Page 57

47 N.W.2d 57

330 Mich. 151

WITT v. TOURN-A-GRIP CO. et al.

No. 52.

Supreme Court of Michigan.

April 3, 1951.

Riseman, Lemke & Piotrowski, Detroit, for appellant.

Marshall E. Smith, Pontiac, William John Beer, Pontiac, of counsel, for appellees.

Before the Entire Bench.

NORTH, Justice.

In this suit plaintiff seeks injunctive relief against defendants and an accounting. Defendants answered and simultaneously filed a motion for dismissal of the bill of complaint. The motion was granted by the circuit judge on the grounds 'that said bill of complaint does not allege an equitable cause of action, and that said bill of complaint sounds in damages only and that plaintiff has an adequate remedy at law * * *.' Plaintiff has appealed.

On defendants' motion to dismiss well pleaded facts in the bill of complaint must be accepted as true. Accepting such allegations as true, the facts presented by the bill of complaint may be summarized as follows.

Plaintiff invented and perfected a portable core and core pin. He did not apply for a patent thereon. For a consideration of $1,200 paid by defendants, plaintiff made for defendants two die molds in which the portable core and core pin were used by plaintiff in casting fishing rod handles for defendants at a stipulated price. The parties agreed that plaintiff would manufacture the two die molds at cost, which he did, conditioned upon his retaining possession of them for use by him in manufacturing at the stipulated price fishing rod handle castings exclusively for defendants. Plaintiff does not allege that he is the owner of the two die molds but only that it was agreed he would retain possession of them. Plaintiff 'did produce a large number of * * * fishing rod handles for defendants at the agreed price * * *.' Defendants became dissatisfied with the price they were paying plaintiff for the handles. They obtained possession of the two die molds by means of a replevin suit, which plaintiff herein states in his brief filed December 6, 1950, had not been determined. Plaintiffs in the replevin suit filed a bond in the amount of $4,800. After obtaining possession of the die molds defendants herein used them in manufacturing the fishing rod handles, and at a much lower cost to themselves. Plaintiff alleges he was thereby deprived of 'the fruits of his invention,' and caused to suffer irreparable loss.

Plaintiff seeks to label defendants' conduct in obtaining possession of the die molds a 'conspiracy,' but no facts are alleged which would support a conclusion that defendants were guilty of a conspiracy. The temporary injunctive relief sought by plaintiff is that defendants 'be restrained from manufacturing any castings by means of the use of the die molds seized from the plaintiff by reason of replevin proceedings * * *'; and a permanent injunction 'restraining the defendants from using such die molds for any industrial purpose whatsoever.' Further, an accounting 'to pay to the plaintiff for damages sustained by him by reason of the use of such die molds' is sought.

We agree with the circuit judge that, under the facts as alleged in the bill of complaint, if plaintiff has a cause of action against defendants, he has a complete and adequate remedy at law for damages resulting from a breach of an alleged contract. In the pending replevin suit, if plaintiff's claim in this equity case is meritorious, he could recover any damages sustained by him in consequence of defendants having brought that suit, or in consequence of defendants having used the die molds. Obviously a judgment for damages recovered by defendant in the replevin suit would not be futile, because plaintiffs in that suit filed a bond in the amount of $4,800, twice the appraised value of the two die molds. And further, as providing plaintiff herein with an adequate...